Evolution or Revolution

Just remember, (4.00 / 1)

The fact that everyone thinks that their Senator (or favorite Senator) is the greatest and is in no way corrupt is THE BIGGEST part of the problem.

For the record, my senator sucks, and the closest Democrat to me, Antoine Thompson, isn't really that much better.

"I love reform! I just need to play the game for a while". You hear it from all of them, all 62.

Even it its true, what happens after they play the game for a while? They become a part of it. There are very few Dennis Kucinichs, Tom Coburns, Bernie Sanders, and Ron Pauls who avoid doing that. In New York government, I don't know if I see any.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 08:46:40 AM CDT

Or, anachronism? (4.00 / 1)

Maybe there are other options-- like, a newly-very-active-in-the-economy Federal government runs NYS in a defacto manner through its interactions with Bloomberg (King of NYC for as long as he chooses to buy the title), Goldman-Sacks, and the zombie skeleton of Citigroup... with assistance from the NY Fed.  That leaves the Albany government doing what it does best-- high court high drama.  I still think that we might be able to pay for it via selling syndication rights to Brazilian TV.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 09:06:15 AM CDT

It's gonna be baby steps (0.00 / 0)

and I think I prefer that. The powers-that-be would never allow the edifice to come tumbling down unless they were certain that they'd be responsible for providing the architect and developer to put up the new one...

---

by: JohnS @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 09:25:12 AM CDT

point of no return (0.00 / 0)

Yes, eventually you have to jettison hope and come up with a plan that has an ultimatum behind it.

Unfortunately, the process of devising such a plan often makes you see more clearly that you have less leverage than you think you do.

---

by: NYCO @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 09:34:44 AM CDT

Beating the system (0.00 / 0)

I've been thinking long and hard about this.

First of all, I was ambivalent about the need for a Constitutional Convention before this mess began, but now I'm convinced of its importance. I'm too the point where I think the State Senate should eventually be dissolved in favor of a  unicameral legislature.

Also, about eight months ago, several people invited me to a phone conversation about forming a coalition that would support progressive candidates for state office, particularly focusing on the State Senate. I think that such a group is vital to any effort to create any substantive change in Albany. And I think a roster of candidates, primary challengers and Democrats running in Republican districts, should be promoted state wide.

You're not going to get anything done if we work independently in each district, but if there is a true Statewide movement, I can see several of these Senate candidates being elected.  

"Generic comment signature."

---

by: cliffweathers @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 10:04:46 AM CDT

Yes (0.00 / 0)

forming a coalition that would support progressive candidates for state office, particularly focusing on the State Senate

Having been the instigator of that group, I can also lay claim to dropping the idea.  It was not out of any sense that it was not a good idea, but out of a sense that in the Patterson/Gillibrand stuff (for lack of a better word) there became a bit of an upstate/downstate rift that might get in the way.  I still fear that may be the case.  I also fear a penchant to move the Democratic Party in NY to a center-right party.  It is a wrong-headed view to cement NY as permanently Democratic state.

Today, the NYT editorial page also calls for an elections with real choices, but naively calls on the parties to recruit candidates for primaries and the general election next year.  Of course the Democratic Party will do nothing to recruit good candidates either for primaries against Dem incumbents or for the general against any R they feel is not an easy mark.  

I am just not the right guy to drive this effort, for a bunch of reasons.  I am glad to be on board and do what I can.  

---

by: jmcbride @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 10:50:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why Upstate/Downstate? (0.00 / 0)

I don't see how most of the reforms that we need hinge on an upstate/downstate division. Campaign finance reform is not upstate/downstate. Division of resources between majority and minority members is not necessarily upstate/downstate. Giving real power to members and committees is not upstate/downstate. Heck, these issues aren't even (or shouldn't be) Democratic/Republican. They're just good government-bad government.

One sticking point may be drawing districts, especially with regard as to how to count prisoners who are from downstate but are incarcerated upstate. But even there, there are gerrymandering issues that can be addressed regardless of where people are deemed to be residing.

I agree that recruiting people to run for office would likely have to be done outside the traditional party structure since neither major party seems to have much incentive to reform itself. It's some heavy lifting. But not every race needs to be won; there only need to be enough winners to join those reformers already in the legislature to move things in the right direction. And it doesn't have to be a Democrat-only effort; surely there must be some Republicans who are interested in giving their members some real power too, even if only as members of a minority party.

---

by: dsimon @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 11:07:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

There should not be an upstate/downstate division on these issues.  In my view, the Democratic Party structure now sees that it is to its advantage to have the division.  Progressives become divided, allowing the party structure to retain control while taking progressive votes for granted.  After all, do they have to worry that we are going to vote for the republican?  

---

by: jmcbride @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 11:20:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reform Coalition (0.00 / 0)

If we could form such a progressive/reform coalition, wouldn't that pretty much obviate the need for a convention?

Plenty of states have bicameral legislatures without New York's dysfunction. I don't think the problem is the constitutional structure, it's who is serving and how the power is distributed within it--which is done with the consent of those presently serving. Replace enough of those people, and we'll start getting different outcomes.

I still think that we were seeing some positive movement before this debacle, and the present chaos should not blind us to those improvements even if they were not as much as most of us would like. Continuing demographic changes are likely to improve things further after the 2010 elections. Add to that the anger and frustration from an increasing number of voters, and I think there is a real opportunity for a reform coalition to take enough seats and join reformers already in Albany to make things happen without a convention. At least I'd like to try that route before putting everything up for grabs where we might get a whole lot of ideas that we don't like at all.

---

by: dsimon @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 10:54:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No convention needed (4.00 / 1)

The problem lies not in the state constitution, but in three subsidiary areas:

1. Districting.  When the lines are drawn by those who have a vested interest in protecting their own jobs, that's how the lines will be drawn.  Additionally, many will play "follow the leader," especially near the end of a decade, in order to ensure that their districts are kept safe from democracy.

2. Campaign finance.  We need a campaign finance system that ensures that anyone who has a base of support among people in the district can mount a potentially successful challenge to an incumbent, whether in a primary or a general election.  (N.B.: NYC's campaign finance system does not succeed in this respect; a true "Clean Money, Clean Elections" system is probably the best available, given U.S. Supreme Court decisions.)

3. House rules.  Neither the Assembly nor the Senate operates by a set of rules that truly allow for, much less encourage, participation by most members.  The 2004 report from the Brennan Center for Justice does not actually call the NY legislature the "most dysfunctional," as many have misquoted, but it repeatedly calls the legislature "dysfunctional," and recommends significant changes in the rules by which each chamber operates.  It is still the gold standard for reform in this area.

Fix those three things, and many of our problems will be easier to solve.  Of course, fixing those things won't happen overnight, but if we keep the faith, keep pushing, and keep working together, we can accomplish much of it within the next few years.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 11:52:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Amen. (4.00 / 1)

t is still the gold standard for reform in this area.

All the Brennan Center reforms, right now.  Anything less is just continuing the problem.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 15:29:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Amen. (4.00 / 1)

it is still the gold standard for reform in this area.

All the Brennan Center reforms, right now.  Anything less is just continuing the problem.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 15:30:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Coalition (0.00 / 0)

It was John McBride's idea, in fact, to start this coalition to elect not only progressives, but reformers to the State Senate. I thought it was a wonderful idea back November and December, when we first discussed it, and I think it's still a great idea. I'm not sure why we're still sitting on the 20-yard line.

If you come up with a concrete platform of reform ideas and get just 6-10 of these candidates to commit their campaigns to these ideals, together they'll have a nice base to begin their campaigns (and they'll get a good amount of exposure in the media). Convince some progressive PACs or even the NY DSCC to get behind these candidates as a group and I think you stand to pick up a few seats for the Dems.

However, as someone noted, this isn't just a Democratic/Republican problem. I think that a lot of our Democratic State Senators should be primaried.

Now I'm waiting for someone to go all Martin Luther on their ass. I would love to see someone nail the political equivalent of the 95 Theses on the State Senate chamber doors, or perhaps here.

"Generic comment signature."

---

by: cliffweathers @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 13:32:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reform platform (0.00 / 0)

I'd propose starting with the three items I outlined above.  There's really nothing new there, as all three of these items have been discussed for years, but they have yet to be enacted.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 14:06:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

in my more mild-mannered moments (0.00 / 0)

your three-piece proposal looks good as a platform.  One thing I especially like is that they could cross party lines pretty easily.

---

by: simonstl @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 14:43:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

May Not Be As Farfetched As One Would Think (0.00 / 0)

Before the Senate blew up, I heard from two good-government groups that there was some shot at getting a public campaign finance law passed. If that's true, it may not take that many more seats to get it, and other reforms, on the move.

I only hope voters are angry enough next primary season and in November 2010 to do some political housecleaning. The job is going to be finding candidates and keeping the electorate motivated, or re-motivating them since those elections are a long ways off.

But maybe the Senate will do us a favor and keep acting like idiots so that people won't have to be reminded of the situation.

---

by: dsimon @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 14:51:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Campaign finance reform (0.00 / 0)

There was a "Clean Elections" bill ready to move out of committee before the insanity got in the way.  I didn't see the final version, so I don't know exactly how strong it was.  In addition, Malcolm Smith had promised publicly in early 2008 to move such a bill to the floor if he became majority leader; too bad he didn't get the chance to finish that job.

The Senate elections committee was also ready to move on a lot of other reforms.  I can only hope that when the dust settles Joe Addabbo is still chairing that committee, because he was doing a great job.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 15:07:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To these I would add... (0.00 / 0)

4. The dissolution of "member items." They're nothing but a political slush fund and incumbency insurance.

5. Better and more transparent accounting for "lulus" or leadership stipends. The more senior members have much more resources and staff afforded to them than do newer members, giving them a distinct advantage in political clout during session and a head start in running for reelection by having the ability to ramp up constituency resources at will. The State Senate and Assembly should equalize the distribution of member budgets and staff resources and reduce the number of superfluous staff members.

"Generic comment signature."

---

by: cliffweathers @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 15:34:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good points (0.00 / 0)

4. Ending member items will not happen any time soon.  Ideally, a bunch of reformers will work to wean their groups off member items, finding other sources of income (perhaps helping to hold fundraisers for those groups when they're "in district" sometime from July through December).  When enough electeds no longer need member items to buy votes, then the push to end them can begin.

5. This should be part of the rules reform; without doublechecking, I wouldn't be surprised if the Brennan Center touched on this subject.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 19:10:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, Primary Them (0.00 / 0)

cliffweathers: I think that a lot of our Democratic State Senators should be primaried.

Absolutely. The reforms under discussion here are by and large nonpartisan. There is no reason why anyone not willing to commit to them should not be primaried by someone who is, regardless of party. Willingness to go after hacks on both sides might expand the base of support for a real reform coalition.

---

by: dsimon @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 14:45:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a tough one (4.00 / 1)

I am conflicted but I equate this more to the Wallstreet fiasco. 'Credit default swaps' were perfectly legal, but was it right to utilize such risky schemes and basically destroy the financial stability of the market place. No it was not right. And hence, in the aftermath and chaos that ensued I was not a supporter of the federal bailout of the banking institutions and wanted to see total collapse so it could be rebuilt correctly.  

So back to the Senate. Is it legal to count a strolling Senator as a 'yes' on hundreds of pieces of legislation? Yes by their rules it is, even with his protest to the contrary, but does it make it right? No it does not. And furthering the madness will just spread the chaos to localities around the state if these measures were to be passed off as Law because local citizens will sue over local taxing authority gained in a cloud of uncertainty. So in keeping one would think I would support total system collapse so it could be rebuilt correctly. But I do not.

I find what we are watching so disturbing that I believe it would be 100 times worse to let it completely unravel. People dream that rebellion, reform, and rebuilding is a pretty thing. They romanticize that it leads to utopia. Maybe it can but what if it leads to more of the same but on an even uglier and grander scale of instability? What if all we had was a unicameral legislature and this were happening and now it's not 62 personalities who can't work together but 212? For every action there is a reaction and people fail to think about how destructive that reaction can be from forces not even considered. Weakness, instability is like chum in the water for the Golosano's of the world. I find myself yearning not for collapse but for order, I want to see a vote be a vote, and a session be a session, and a law be a law and a Senator be a Senator. It's become that basic for me. I can't be sure of the parliamentary proceedings, and the press conferences, and the rhetoric and what is true and what is false anymore. When laws mean nothing I believe society suffers hence I struggle to believe a utopia can be born out of that.

---

by: TruBlu @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 12:13:42 PM CDT

thoughtful post (0.00 / 0)

But... predictable inertia vs. unpredictable danger/opportunity?  I personally usually tend to the "Let's wait, and the danger will pass" school of thought, and dysfunctional inertia sometimes has beneficial results (hey, it saved us all from Diebold machines).  But I also recognize this may not be the time for that response.

---

by: NYCO @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 12:53:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

1776 (4.00 / 1)

I saw the movie of the musical 1776 (again) over the weekend. In the film, the New York delegation keeps abstaining, much to the frustration of John Hancock. I was amused by the following exchange; it seems things haven't changed much (at least in this fictional version):

Lewis Morris: [as John Hancock is about to swat a fly] Mr. Secretary, New York abstains, courteously.
[Hancock raises his fly swatter at Morris, then draws back]

John Hancock: Mr. Morris,
[pause, then shouts]

John Hancock: WHAT IN HELL GOES ON IN NEW YORK?

Lewis Morris: I'm sorry Mr. President, but the simple fact is that our legislature has never sent us explicit instructions on anything!

John Hancock: NEVER?
[slams fly swatter onto his desk]

John Hancock: That's impossible!

Lewis Morris: Mr. President, have you ever been present at a meeting of the New York legislature?

[Hancock shakes his head "No"]

Lewis Morris: They speak very fast and very loud, and nobody listens to anybody else, with the result that nothing ever gets done.
[turns to the Congress as he returns to his seat]

Lewis Morris: I beg the Congress's pardon.

John Hancock: [grimly] My sympathies, Mr. Morris.  

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 19:44:29 PM CDT

Thank you for this (0.00 / 0)

I knew there was lots of precedent, but none quite so funny!

Thanks!

---

by: simonstl @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 20:01:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]