Comments on: A Metastasizing Cancer Cell in the Center of a Disfiguring Boil

By: Ward

Ward — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:57:50 +0000

A suggestion for saving the Senate (and us).
One senator elected from each county. Allegeny County (think Montana) would be as well represented as Brooklyn (think California). Malcolm Smith might not even be the majority leader in that case. The Federalist Papers discuss strong reasons for establishing the US Senate on this model, and they are the same as the reasons for doing it in New York.

By: jack fate

jack fate — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:17:37 +0000

Personally, I think a unicameral state legislature is something worth seriously considering.

By: Chris from OP

Chris from OP — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:40:07 +0000

Sure we’ll have factions, but there is less confusion on who is responsible when there is only one house. As for the districts being badly drawn; that would still be a problem unless there was some other type of reform, like having the districts drawn by a panel of retired judges which is a proposal that I like. That said, the smaller the district, the harder it is to gerrymander it because you have a lot less wiggle room.

Also, a unicameral legislature is cheaper because there are fewer legislators and staffers to pay.

By: LC Scotty

LC Scotty — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:44:44 +0000

@Chris,

Excellent points but here’s what I see as problems. Although the districts are smaller, I would imagine that they are largely just as badly drawn as Louise Slaughter’s congressional district. I also have the gut feeling that even is we did have a unicameral assembly, these guys would not care about where the buck stopped. I have every confidence that instead of houses blaming each other with a nudge and a wink, it would be factions inside our single house playing the same game.

By: Brian Castner

Brian Castner — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:25:40 +0000

I have a theory about why things got so bad. NYS was always broke, but not this broke. What changed is the Senate. There was an unspoken truce for DECADES: the Dems get the Assembly, the R’s get the Senate, we swap the Gov, and everyone gets paid. Then the Dems realikz they can have the whole thing, and win in Nov. The unspoken agreement is broken, everyone gets butt hurt, and hilarity ensues.

By: Chris from OP

Chris from OP — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:50:34 +0000

@ LC Scotty, I know this was aimed at Alan but I want to put my $0.02 in too. I hate the Assembly as it exists now, but I want a unicameral legislature that is more like the Assembly than the Senate.

The major reason is that the districts are smaller, and therefore (theoretically) more representative. It’s pretty reasonable for any regular Joe Blow to circulate petitions to run in an Assembly district, but by design it’s almost impossible to get on the ballot for a Senate seat without a party aparatus backing you. That makes the Senate less democratic and more hack-tacular.

The other reason I want a unicameral legislature is that people know where the buck stops. Many times in the last few years both houses have passed similar bills but neglected to hammer out the details because “the special interests” didn’t want the legislation passed. That way, your Assemblyman and you Senator got to look good by voting for something they knew would never pass and each house could vilify the other. In a unicameral legislature, you know exactly where the buck stops.

By: Mike Walsh

Mike Walsh — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:45:35 +0000

Alan did say he was just as disgusted with the assembly. The whole system is broken beyond repair.

By: LC Scotty

LC Scotty — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:05:02 +0000

Alan,

You’ve repeatedly called for abolishing the state senate based on these hijinks, and it seems that you have much more faith in the assembly. Am I misunderstanding your position?

The folks in the assembly are culled from the same political cesspool as the senators. They have the same extra-curricular legal troubles, have abjectly failed to do anything positive in the last 40 years and are just as complicit in the “3 men in a room” syndrome that has destroyed this state.

So my question is, aside from some savings, what do you hope to accomplish by going unicameral? That simply gets us to 2 men in a room.

By: Bill Altreuter

Bill Altreuter — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:48:18 +0000

One of the things that the legislature is supposed to do with every bill introduced is to quantify the projected cost of the legislation. Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out what this adventure cost? The effect that the senate’s paralysis had on local government’s ability to pay their bills, and the interest on those obligations all by itself must be quite substantial.

I’d like to see those numbers.