On New York City’s unique “top-two” elections proposal

Last week, I wrote an article for City Journal on the proposed “top-two” system of mayoral elections in New York City. Here is how it opens: “As a political scientist, I don’t love the proposal, but it could work—if parties retain control of which candidates use their labels.”

I also spoke with NY1 on Friday afternoon. The bottom line in that conversation was that this proposal is not for an “open primary” as typically understood.

This is a complex issue. As such, it is hard to evaluate separately from what one expects or wants to see in November’s mayoral election.

Do anti-party reforms ironically require major-party backing?

I’m sure we will hear a lot about the RCV measures that just were on the ballot. Only in DC did one pass/cause RCV adoption (or retention).1

Continue reading “Do anti-party reforms ironically require major-party backing?”

An out-of-sample test of the ‘shifting coalitions’ view of electoral reform

Portland (OR) journalist Maja Harris has an interesting post about the surfeit of candidates running in the city’s first STV elections. Does the experience so far reflect the perspective I built to understand Progressive Era adoptions of the same?

Continue reading “An out-of-sample test of the ‘shifting coalitions’ view of electoral reform”