Skip to content

Author: Santucci

Mapping the repeal of proportional representation in New York City

I may have more to say about this later.

Two sorts of hypotheses might explain the variation. One concerns third-party strength (Labor, Liberal, Communist). But ecological inference suggests a divided Labor Party!

The other sort concerns politics of urban renewal. This may help explain the pockets of opposition in Bronx and Brooklyn. Also in the book, I analyze the City Council roll-call record. Those data suggest a faction of the Republican Party feuding with the O’Dwyer (D) administration and other Republicans on budget matters.

Another point worth mentioning: this was one of few repeals (the only?) that increased assembly size. So, there may be a counterintuitive representation story too.

Feel free to comment if anything strikes you.

Philadelphia’s at-large seats

Today was primary day in Philly. Below is a portion of the ballot. I found myself relying on the “Vote for not more than X” instructions.

The race of interest is council-at-large. Here we are selecting five Democratic nominees to contest seven seats in November. (No party may give its label to more than five.)

This is where I pitch the “one-vote system.” All of the above candidates could run in the general without spoiling their party. There would be no further need to limit nominations by law. And the act of voting would be more user-friendly.

Philadelphia ranked-choice: early observations

The local paper of record has endorsed RCV in the context of a crowded Democratic mayoral primary. It also has called for nonpartisan elections (potentially with runoffs). How the latter might affect the former is left to the reader.

The endorsement followed a poll by several pro-RCV groups. One is pushing simultaneously in Harrisburg for open primaries.

I have been following the issue since I got here in early 2019. The Philadelphia Citizen wrote about it in 2016. There were murmurs of interest in good-government circles but not much more. (Hence we found the site useful for a survey experiment.) National groups became vocal in Spring 2021, shortly after New York City adopted RCV for primaries.

I discussed the issue on Philly NPR in late April.* Billy Penn ran a story earlier that week.

Here is a piece I wrote in October 2021. It recommended open-list proportional representation. (The conversation at the time was less mayor-centric.) It also noted that a Philadelphian had invented list PR in the 1840s. This was partly to address the unpredictability of runoffs.

*The interview refers to me as an assistant professor. I am flattered but not one.

Teaching research design to undergrads

This has been my second time (we end in June). Here is how I would do it in the future.

1) Spend 2-3 class sessions on an accessible book that covers much of a (traditional) subfield. Use class to discuss the books the way my high school English teachers did.

2) Have each student choose a theme and write a paragraph on it. Call this the “commitment paragraph.”

3) Group students by some reasonable subfield division. These become “workshops.”

4) Proceed through my existing scaffolding. Workshop that work 1x per week.

5) Decide whether students should write a full paper, just the first 2/3, or just a literature review. This will depend on student energy and whether I have 10 or 14 weeks.

6) Students may final papers solo or in groups of not more than three. That decision is made in the middle of the term, and students sign contracts.

This differs in three ways from what I am doing now. First, it uses a ‘classic text’ to familiarize a basic vocabulary. Now I have each student choose a top-three journal article. That is too broad.

Then it replaces ad hoc groups with standing “workshops.” This might build rapport and lead to cross-fertilization.

Third, it introduces optional coauthorship.

Research design thus taught will reflect the instructor’s specialization(s). This is an asset. The course can rotate.