Ed Koch's stunt

Spot on (4.00 / 3)

Any movement that lists Pedro Espada on it's "Heroes of Reform" page on it's website isn't a political movement...

It's a bowel movement.

There's more than one of these things going on right now.  All of them seem to muddy the waters and provide deadbeat legislators of both parties to claim the moral high ground, a message geared to those who aren't paying attention.  Cheap political points to be scored by good and bad, like base hits at a tee-ball game.

I'm not paying any attention to who signs any stupid pledges anymore.  As far as I'm concerned, they're a non-issue.  Glad you called Koch out on this stunt.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 00:19:47 AM UTC

I have more doubts about Koch than anyone (0.00 / 0)

but at least he's doing SOMETHING that keeps the conversation moving during election season.

I can imagine that it's terribly embarrassing for a lot of Democrats to be asked whether they're reformers, but come on - step up to the plate.

This isn't a Republican plot, despite Espada signing on.  It's something I'd have done myself if I had anywhere near the star power or cash to pull it off.

(He was involved in Fix Albany too - you can't always pick who's going to agree with you.)

---

by: simonstl @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 00:39:36 AM UTC

You can't always pick who's going to agree with you (4.00 / 1)

Gods, that's a good observation!  Anything to get a conversation started...and who besides us TAP enthusiasts are going to pay any attention to who signs a silly pledge, anway?  Us political junkies should remember that the vast majority of people are non-political junkies :-)  Considering the residual effect of this on your average voter who pays attention to politics but once a year...then yes, perhaps it does have some value for that.

Still...even though you can't always pick who's going to agree with you...you might be able to suspect who's going to appear to agree with you.  Espcecially if you're an old hand like Ed Koch.  He knows that most of the pledge signers have no intention of actually keeping it; he knows that everybody running for office will sign it and then it doesn't even act a differential between candidates anymore; and he also knows it'll get his own name out there.  I think that's Dan Jacoby's main point, and it's a damn good one.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 00:59:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Spot on (4.00 / 2)

Listen, when I agree completely with you the least I can do is say so.

Your point that nobody gives a damn what Ed Koch says (except for a few political junkies like us) is a major point that I missed.  Sometimes we need to remember that most people are more concerned with getting that raise, or what to buy for dinner, or whether they need to bring their umbrella to work, than they are about who gets elected.

The problem with so many progressives and reformers (two groups with some overlap) is that we rarely connect with those people.  Republicans, on the other hand, have done a brilliant job of connecting, which is why they can say the more heinously stupid lies and still get elected (Michele Bachmann, for instance).

One thing I've noticed is that the first step in connecting with people is listening to them.  Often times, they'll give an opening -- something they're pissed about.  A couple of years ago, I was petitioning with a candidate.  He was talking with a homeowner, or rather listening to the homeowner.  After a minute or so, the homeowner said something that opened the door, and the candidate jumped on it.  Another minute later, and he had not only the homeowner's signature, but also the homeowner's guest.  Two signatures from people who began the conversation by not giving a damn.

Keep making your points, Soundpolitic.  I won't always agree with you, and you'll know when I don't, but when you come up with an incisive observation, I'll help spread your words.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:50:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right on /nt (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:38:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't even know Ed Koch was still around (0.00 / 0)

---

by: JML @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 19:16:32 PM UTC

If anyone cares (4.00 / 1)

The "lists" are out, of Koch's "heroes" and "enemies."

Among the "enemies" are people who aren't even running this fall, like Assemblymember Carrozza and Senator Onorato, and at least one Senate candidate who has dropped out of the race (Sean Cooney).  Also on the list are people who have fought for reform for some time, including Assemblymembers Gottfried, Lancman, Millman and Ortiz and Senator Adams.

When will this buffoonery end?

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 20:44:04 PM UTC

I like the way the entire Republican Senate (4.00 / 1)

....marched up and all signed yesterday. It's because they now believe that they aren't going to have the majority come re-districting time and their only hope of not getting gerrymandered into oblivion is the non-partisan route. They may actually keep a couple of seats that way.

If they seriously thought they were actually going to win this fall, no way they would have signed.


We've got some work ahead of us.

---

by: NYBri @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 22:22:25 PM UTC

Hmmmm, I believe that (0.00 / 0)

Senate Republicans are in trouble anyway as the lower 12 counties added 550,000 residents and the northern 50 counties lost about 60,000 residents since Census 2000. Two senate districts are heading downstate unless the Republicans can control the process with A. Cuomo signing off on the new lines which may include the 63rd district somewhere on Long Island. That district, if created, will be filled with every African American and Hispanic resident they can pack in.

---

by: GOP_RIP @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 23:37:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cuomo doesn't get to sign off (0.00 / 0)

It's in the state constitution, Article III, Section 4, paragraph three:

The ratio for apportioning senators shall always be obtained by dividing the number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, by fifty, and the senate shall always be composed of fifty members, except that if any county having three or more senators at the time of any apportionment shall be entitled on such ratio to an additional senator or senators, such additional senator or senators shall be given to such county in addition to the fifty senators, and the whole number of senators shall be increased to that extent.

I'm not exactly sure what this passage means (I'm still working on it), except that the total number of senators increases whenever people move from low-density areas to high-density areas.  Since, as you point out, they have over the past 10 years, it means that the number of senators will almost certainly increase -- possibly by more than one.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 03:36:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure that passage is still operational (0.00 / 0)

and I suspect the same is true of any of the county-based machinery for the Senate, since Baker vs. Carr.

My understanding is that the current Senate approach is to take the total number of Senators from the number of counties in New York - which can be 61 or 62 depending on how you count the Bronx's separation from Westchester, if I remember right - and then apportion in a manner just as blindly partisan as the Assembly.

I could be off, but that's how I remember it, anyway.

---

by: simonstl @ Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:26:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Depends on how you interpret the passage (4.00 / 1)

Baker v. Carr merely began the process that resulted in "one person, one vote" in Reynolds v. Sims.  If the passage is interpreted in a way that skews the "one person, one vote" formula then it is not operational.  On the other hand, if it is interpreted to say that you need to add extra senate seats whenever any county is entitled to more than three senators, then reapportion the seats based on the new number, it still works.

My problem is that this passage is so badly written that it may not be capable of solid interpretation.  It's pretty clear, I think, that it needs to be rewritten.

Also, my research says that Bronx County was, at least from 1895 through 1913, part of what was then Manhattan County (the western Bronx from 1874), and was separated effective January 1, 1914.

According to the NY Senate website, the number of senators rose from 51 during the period 1907-1944, then 56 for a decade, then 58 for another decade, then 65 for a couple of years before being reset to 57.  In 1972 it went to 60, then 61 in 1982, and finally 62 in 2002. So I don't think that the number of state senators has anything to do with the number of counties.

Doing the math, it seems to me that the current number just might be based on first apportioning numbers of senators in each county based on 50 senators, then for every senate seat greater than three in any county an extra seat is added, then once the new number is reached the reapportionment is done.

There are six counties with more than three senators -- Suffolk, Nassau, Kings, Queens, New York, and Bronx.  Among them, there are 34 senate districts (counting the 36th SD, which is mostly in the Bronx).  That's 14 more than three senators per county (14 "extra").  There is no other county that has more than three senate seats (Westchester has all of two districts, plus part of two more).  Without doing heavy math, that translates into just over 11 "extra" seats in a 50-seat senate, meaning that we should have a 61-seat senate.

Except...

The NYC districts are drawn to have a lot more people per district than upstate districts.  An initial 50-district apportionment, therefore, probably meant 12 "extra" seats, and thus the current 62.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:41:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This needs its own diary entry, I think (0.00 / 0)

A history of what happened here would be useful.  I agree completely that "the passage is so badly written that it may not be capable of solid interpretation".  

So that was added after Baker and Reynolds?  Hard to imagine.

I think the Bronx's history is even more complicated than you describe going further back, but I could be wrong.

Assemblyman Bill Parment went over lots of this - though from an Assembly perspective - a few years ago.  I put up a recording and transcript of that event.  It might also be useful.

On the number of Senators, the Spring 2002 entry in the ancient-seeming "New York State Senate Timeline" reports:

"Using 2002 Census data and the formula in the State Constitution which determines the number of Senate districts, the size of the Senate is increased from 61 to 62 districts."

As we go into redistricting, these kinds of details are all going to matter.  Having them in one place would be great.

---

by: simonstl @ Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 13:41:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ed Who????? (4.00 / 1)

Since Koch was Mayor the landscape of NYC has completely changed.  Walk up and down the streets of each borough and I'm sure you'll find more people who DON'T know who Ed Koch is than those who do.

---

by: ROSALIE907 @ Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 00:08:01 AM UTC

Forget GAAP, which is broken anyway. (0.00 / 0)

Adopt IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards).  Canada just threw away GAAP and is switching all its businesses to IFRS.

---

by: neroden @ Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:41:04 AM UTC

Real people are damn sick and tired of high taxes, bloated government (0.00 / 0)

and general bullshit.  November 2d, we get to have our say and we will vote for people who will slash taxes, trim the fat from the government and cut the bullshit.

There has been a sea-change in the electorate, you don't see.  Too bad.  

---

by: John Minehan @ Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 23:31:02 PM UTC