Patterico's Pontifications

6/2/2021

Meanwhile, in America’s Largest City

Filed under: General — JVW @ 5:32 pm



[guest post by JVW]

With all of the crazy news out there, perhaps you are like me and have paid scant attention to this month’s mayoral primary contest in New York City, in which the top two finishers, one Democrat and one Republican, will advance to a November election in which they will be joined by assorted candidates representing various other parties. Among the Democrats is last year’s Presidential aspirant Andrew Yang who has seen his fortunes fall dramatically over the past six months, from being the front-runner at the tail-end of last year to now perhaps finding himself staring up at the top two candidates. It’s a very sudden descent (Yang was leading the polling pretty strongly as recently as six weeks ago), and Kyle Smith over at National Review Online thinks he knows why:

So what happened? People started asking Yang questions about New York City. And he answered them. He has said so many embarrassing things that New Yorkers are starting to compare his leadership qualities to those of The Office’s Michael Scott. “Cringe, in many ways, has been what the Yang campaign runs on,” wrote New York Times critic James Poniewozik.

Like Trump, Yang has zero experience in government. And, like Trump, he hopes to be seen as a rich businessman who can break and/or fix things. Also like Trump, Yang lunges at every microphone and camera. He will talk to anybody, even comedians, and he is unembarrassable. Though Yang has lived in the city for 22 years, he gives off the impression that he either hasn’t been paying attention or has been out of town a lot. Poniewozik assembled against Yang the following damning indictment:

He tweeted his love of New York “bodegas” with a video of what looked like a capacious supermarket. He reminisced about waiting “in,” not “on,” line at a “NY restaurant,” Shake Shack.

To that can be added the following: Yang complained that the city is not enforcing rules against unlicensed street vendors (which felt like a dig against immigrants and the harmless yet colorful vibe they bring to the streets). He has said of fellow candidate Kathryn Garcia both that she has demonstrated incompetence by having served under Bill de Blasio and that he would hire her to manage his government for him. He has blanked out when asked basic questions about NYPD reforms, how he would pay for his fanciful idea to wrest control of the subway system from New York State, and what his favorite Jay-Z song is.

And here was the capper: Asked to name his favorite subway stop, Yang said, “Times Square.” This was evidence of some next-level cluelessness; one of the things that binds all New Yorkers together is that we all hate tourists and the wellspring from which they emerge, Times Square. The remark reinforced the perception that Yang, who grew up in the suburbs north of the city and went to boarding school at Phillips Exeter Academy, is not a true member of our strange New York City tribe.

The accusation that native son Yang is not a true New Yorker is pretty remarkable considering that the current mayor of Gotham, the execrable Bill de Blasio, spent most of his childhood living in Cambridge and continues to profess his loyalty to the Boston Red Sox, of all the ways to poke New Yorkers in the eye.

I admired Andrew Yang’s performance last year, though I acknowledge that I found his universal basic income idea a bit daffy. But Kyle Smith (another Massachusetts transplant, but one who seems to more readily identify himself as a New Yorker) judges Mr. Yang’s performance in the mayoral election this year to be almost embarrassing, from his ignorance of the city he hopes to lead to his wimpy backtracking after having expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself against Palestinian rocket fire. And Mr. Smith alerts us to a fact that I had not previously known about Mr. Yang, namely that he isn’t the amazing dot-com mogul that he and his fans would want you to believe:

Yet, unlike Trump, Yang cannot point to any entity or edifice and brag that he built it; his signature accomplishment was a flashy nonprofit career-training outfit that promised to incubate 100,000 jobs but fell 99,850 short and burned through tens of millions in donations in the process. Yang’s other achievement is climbing confidently up the rungs of private industry all the way to the position of chief of a small test-prep company you’ve never heard of. His net worth is about $1 million, according to Forbes, which for a 46-year-old lawyer in Manhattan who got his J.D. from Columbia University is slightly embarrassing. (At major city law firms, starting salaries approach $200,000.) Yang seems to think that his self-styled “entrepreneur” label makes him sound like a rich guy who doesn’t like to brag, but in fact he’s just another schmuck on the No. 2 train.

Well, somebody’s gotta be mayor of that town. I have zero opinion on any of the other candidates except for to note that they are pretty much exactly the sort of candidates you would expect in New York City of 2021. I guess we’ll find out who makes it to November soon enough, but I must confess that Kyle Smith has me seeing Andrew Yang in a whole new light, far more unflattering than how I viewed him last year.

– JVW

26 Responses to “Meanwhile, in America’s Largest City”

  1. If the Shake Shacks in New York are pretty much the same as the ones which opened in Los Angeles a few years back, it’s overrated in that special myopic way that so many things from New York are overrated.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  2. Agreed on Shake Shack – their concr..er..vanilla shakes might be the inspiration for the favorite in Antifa’s arsenal. Yang might just be a less malevolent east coast iteration of Beto O’Rourke

    urbanleftbehind (93c868)

  3. It’s really too bad that Yang couldn’t have waited to self-destruct until he was the candidate. That worked well for Barack Obama.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  4. Yang is a political dilettante. Haven’t we seen enough of them to last a lifetime?

    Rip Murdock (dd79dd)

  5. New York politicians might not be the politicians New Yorkers need but they are the ones they deserve.

    Favorite subway stop? Real deep thinkers those people are.

    nk (1d9030)

  6. The New York Mayoral Election Is No Longer Andrew Yang’s To Lose
    ………
    After spending much of the race as the first choice of at least 20 percent — sometimes even 30 percent — of voters, Yang has fallen back into the teens and is roughly tied with (Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president) and with (Kathryn Garcia, the former sanitation commissioner), who is now polling in the double digits even according to a Yang internal poll. (In fact, the most recent poll, from Emerson College/PIX11 News, showed Garcia getting 21 percent of first-choice votes and winning the Democratic nomination after 11 rounds of instant runoffs. However, so far, this poll is an outlier.)

    Garcia’s dramatic improvement is most likely thanks to her May 10 endorsement by the New York Times editorial board……..
    …….
    Be cautious with polls of this race, though. It’s hard enough to accurately poll an oddly timed local election; it’s even harder to accurately poll one that uses ranked-choice voting. ……
    ………

    Rip Murdock (dd79dd)

  7. Would they do just as well picking a mayor at random? Or by lottery?

    frosty (f27e97)

  8. Andrew Yang has no neck.

    norcal (081862)

  9. Well, somebody’s gotta be mayor of that town.

    And one helluva town it is:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku5WeNn_unE

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  10. Meanwhile, Biden gives Arctic to Putin.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  11. And here was the capper: Asked to name his favorite subway stop, Yang said, “Times Square.” This was evidence of some next-level cluelessness; one of the things that binds all New Yorkers together is that we all hate tourists and the wellspring from which they emerge, Times Square. The remark reinforced the perception that Yang, who grew up in the suburbs north of the city and went to boarding school at Phillips Exeter Academy, is not a true member of our strange New York City tribe.

    ‘We New Yorkers’??? WTF. Clueless Smith has his head so far up Miss Liberty’s azz he’s gabbing out her nostrils; which reinforces the perception that he’s the last living gentrifying yuppie allowed in from Massachusetts. New Yorkers love tourists – especially when they spend their tourist dollars in Times Square, crossroads of the world, [you closeted BoSox twit] catch a few shows on Broadway, a drink at Sardi’s, cut a rug in the Rainbow Room, a steak at Smith & Wolensky’s; actually have a bagel for breakfast at Tiffany’s; visit Fox News HQ at 1211 6th and Trump Tower on Fifth, experience 30 Rock; pray at St. Paddy’s; shop at Macy’s and Bloomies, hit the Diamond District; see the treasures at the MoMA and the Museum of Natural History by day [before it comes alive at night;] the Hayden Planetarium; salute the USS Intrepid during Fleet Week and sprint through Grand Central at rush hour; learn who is buried in Grant’s Tomb [ do you know is, Kyle?] Ask one of New York’s Finest how do you get to Carnegie Hall; dare to walk through and to the Central Park Zoo; see the Chrysler Building and every spot where they filmed Ghostbusters, and the spot where Lennon was shot. Wave at New Jersey from the Empire State Building; go gaily through the Village and dine in Tribeca, move chop-chop through Chinatwon, grab your wallet on Wall Street; weep at the footprints of WTC Memorial and cheer the Freedom Tower; kiss Lady Liberty’s feet if she’ll let you; catch a Yankee game if you can, a Met or Knicks game if you dare. Then catch your breath and a train to the plane at JFK– and go back to Massachusetts.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  12. New Yorkers love tourists – especially when they spend their tourist dollars in Times Square. . .

    Times Square was a helluva lot more fun in the pre-Disney days.

    Grant’s was the best bar I was ever in,
    The center of the universe, a cauldron of sin.
    Sure sometimes when the lights went out someone would get shot,
    That’s no reason to bring back Camelot!

    – Buster Poindexter, “Nueva Broadway (They Don’t Smoke)” 1997

    JVW (ee64e4)

  13. They should beg Giuliani to come back, but they’re too busy trying to prosecute him on trumped up charges.

    “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

    NJRob (6826a3)

  14. Rob, Rudy has become a clownish shadow of the man he used to be. NYC can do better.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  15. They should beg Giuliani to come back, but they’re too busy trying to prosecute him on trumped up charges.
    Interesting choice of words…….pun not intended?

    Rip Murdock (dd79dd)

  16. the top two finishers, one Democrat and one Republican, will advance to a November election in which they will be joined by assorted candidates representing various other parties

    That gets it wrong. There is no runoff.

    The Democratic and Republican party have separate primaries. There are only two candidates in the Republican primary – one of them was just endorsed by Mike Flynn because he says the other, Curtis Sliwa, whom you may have heard of, is a Never Trumper. The Republican candidate doesn’t normally stand achance even though a Republican was elected five times in a row from 1993 to 2009. But that person is really running as an independent, and has other ballot lines. A good Republican can expect to get abut 30% of the vote, getting majorities only in selected places in the city.

    What we will have on Tuesday June 22 *+(with early voting beginning June 12) is a Democratic primary. There is still time to register if someone wasn’t registered but it is too late to switch parties and you must be enrolled inn that party to vote in its primary. It used to be that the deadline for switching parties was the previous November election (in reality sometime in early October) but they changed that this year.

    It used to be, since Mario Procaccino, a conservative, won the Democratic primary for mayor in 1969 (Lindsey lost the Republican primary but was re-elected that year running on the Liberal party line alone) , that if no candidate got at least 40% (and the runner up did not concede) there was a runoff two weeks later * in all citywide primaries (not for City Council of Borough President, which is a largely powerless office except for city planning and zoning and lobbying)
    ——-
    *
    When the primary was in September, the state legislature would sometimes alter the date of the primary because of conflict with a Jewish holiday, sometimes holding it on a Thursday (the favorite day if the week if not Tuesday) In 2001, there were three primaries – the interrupted and then invalidated Sept 11 primary, and then a primary and a runoff – plus the general election in November. The state legislature also changed the primary date from September 11 in 2007, 2012, and 2018.

    Sometimes the two top finishers got in the 20s – in one case, for Public Advocate there were four candidates clumped around 16%.

    This year there will be ranked choice voting which could also be called an instant runoff, although the winner will not be known for at least three weeks, although you’ll know the first choice picks of around 70% of the voters maybe the next day.

    There are about 13 candidates, and 8 serious ones, and 4 or 5 leaders, or maybe three, with the top two being Andrew Yang and Eric Adams.

    Each voter will be able to vote for up to five choices. If they vote for someone in two positions, only the higher ranked choice counts, if they vote for two different people at the same rank, the ballot is spoiled beyond that point – and I think they can skip one rank. I don’t know how they handle write-ins. It is easy if all write-ins combined rank last. But if not, will they have to determine for whom the write-ins are for before proceeding any further?

    It might be that the only thing that counts is, if they include both, which of the two do they rank higher. It is kind of important to choose five if there are one or more potential finishers whom you would never vote for.

    Now what they do, once ALL the ballots have been received, is drop the lowest rank candidate and then look at whom the votes for that candidate rank second. And continue until someone gets over 50%

    Ranked choice voting in New York City applies only in primaries, and only to offices created by the City Charter. It does not apply to judges, or to district attorneys. (District Attorneys arr elected for 4 years, but the terms do not end in the same year – if one gets replaced by a special election in the middle of a term, you start the 4 years from there) It also would not apply to state legislators or statewide races but none are up this year

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/nyregion/ranked-choice-voting-nyc.html

    https://vote.nyc/page/ranked-choice-voting

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  17. Also like Trump, Yang lunges at every microphone and camera. He will talk to anybody, even comedians, and he is unembarrassable

    He’s running much too scared.

    But you have to figure out what he would be likely, and not likely, to do.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  18. He tweeted his love of New York “bodegas” with a video of what looked like a capacious supermarket.

    He shops there, but that is not what most people would call a bodega, if they use that word.

    how he would pay for his fanciful idea to wrest control of the subway system from New York State,

    That plan was borrowed from somebody else, and of course assumes that the city will not take over most of the debt. He was running on it, but maybe stopped. Now his chief fiscal complaint is that Nayor de Blasio wants to use up the special stimulus money the city is getting, leaving the city in a big hole in 2023.

    He has said of fellow candidate Kathryn Garcia both that she has demonstrated incompetence by having served under Bill de Blasio and that he would hire her to manage his government for him.

    Yesterday, maybe in order not to inconsistent, he again named Kathryn Garcia as his second choice. (most of the other seven candidates in the debate avoided naming or refused to name a second choice) He was also the only candidate who said he would want the endorsement both of Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo (he was just being honest here)

    what his favorite Jay-Z song is.

    He should have that, while he occasionally listened to him atone point, he was not a fan amd didn’t know the names of any songs.

    Asked to name his favorite subway stop, Yang said, “Times Square.”

    It is his favorite statioon. He lives in the neighborhood (Hell’s Kitchen also known as Clinton) Any place west of 9th Avenue is Hell’s Kitchen. Times Square is by 7th avenue. It would be his favorite because it connects to more – besides the A train on 8th avenue is linked.

    e that I found his universal basic income idea a bit daffy.

    In the debate he noted that they actually did it now. $3,200 plus an increased child tax credit (given monthly at that.) He said that shows that things can happen.

    wimpy backtracking after having expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself against Palestinian rocket fire.

    It wasn;t real backtracking. He added people to be sympathetic to.

    I must confess that Kyle Smith has me seeing Andrew Yang in a whole new light, far more unflattering than how I viewed him last year.

    Too many people are against him too much.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  19. “If we don’t educate, we are going to incarcerate,” Adams said.

    Good that he said it, but it;s actually the converse that’s true.

    “If we are going to incarcerate, we’re not educating.

    Eric Adams is sort of like trying to have it both ways on the anti-police, pro-police debate. But he’s probably more on the “we need more police” side. (maybe that’s because he knows that’s where the votes really are) Will he do enough?

    And someone should tell CNN that he is the Borough president of Brooklyn, not the Bronx.

    Eric Adams told the New York Times he would accept an endorsement from Governor Cuomo, like from any New Yorker. He thinks the way to make up for educational loss is to extend the school year and school hours. This shows he has no idea of how education works. It’s not how much time is put into it. He also says we should learn how to do remote earning and be the best in the country at it.- it shouldn’t be done on the haphazard way it was.

    Eric Adams told the New York Times that he in touch with a number of candidates whom he agrees with philosophically etc to see if they will rank each other, but who they are is a secret.

    I saw a picture of Senator Tim Scott on the cover on the Washington Examiner. He looks like Eric Adams (same skin tone and bald wth some resemblance in features)

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  20. Part of the debate:

    Extracted from here: https://news.yahoo.com/nyc-mayoral-candidates-debate-crime-023630953.html

    Video Transcript

    No surprise we’re going to start tonight the first question on crime. And I want to start by looking at some figures that we got just yesterday. That is crime shootings so far this year, 573 shootings with 652 victims. That is a 77% increase over the same period from last year. And it is looking like we could indeed have a very bloody summer.

    So my question is, during the same period we’ve heard a lot of talk about defunding police. If not defunding then moving money from the police department to social community programs. My question and it goes to Eric first is how do you fight crime and cut police at the same time?

    ERIC ADAMS: Well, I said this throughout the entire campaign, we have to go upstream when we talk about fighting crime, we often have a downstream mindset. Fighting crime is both intervention and prevention. Prevention are some of the long term plans that many of my candidates are talking about but intervention is right now. What are we doing right now to deal with the overproliferation of handguns, to deal with the gang problem?

    We have five people shot in Brooklyn. It was a gang war. If we don’t get on the ground and stop the flow of guns into our community as well as ensuring that we have a prevention plan– and I know this too well, everyone knows my story of coming into public life from being arrested and beaten by police officers but they don’t know that I also lost a good friend, a childhood friend who died from a gang violence shooting in South Jamaica, Queens. This is not just a professional battle for me, this is a personal battle for me. We’re losing too many of our children to the crime on the streets today.

    – OK. Next we’re going to go to Kathryn. Kathryn, you’ve talked about a gun buyback program of increasing the gun purchase for each gun from $200 to $2,000. Erica said that won’t work. Your response and also how you would solve this violent crime problem that we have?

    KATHRYN GARCIA: Absolutely. We have gone from a pandemic of COVID to an epidemic of gun violence. We have to use every tool in the toolbox. So yes, I want to buy back guns because that is potentially a life saved. But I also want to make investment in the gun suppression unit and really dig into the data. So we are pinpointing where this is occurring and managing to those numbers.

    But we have to stop the flow of guns into this country, into this city because we know that there are no gun manufacturers in the city of New York. The iron pipeline is real and we can have a deep plan with our federal partners to stop that. But it is also about going upstream and making sure that people who will become part of the criminal justice system are stopped by investing in our foster kids, by making sure that we have summer youth employment. So I am a believer in making sure that we are doing what we need to do now but also in making the investments in our youth so that we do have a safer city for everyone.

    – Shaun Donovan, my question, though is how do you fight crime and cut police at the same time? You’ve spoken about cutting police in the past.

    SHAUN DONOVAN: Look, this is too important an issue to answer it with hashtags or tweets. We need to make sure that we are focused on both safety and respect. And the way that we do that is by really focusing our police on guns and violent crime, not asking them to set up barricades on our open streets or be mental health experts with our homeless. We do need to get the guns off our street. We are not manufacturing them here. I have a unique relationship with President Biden, with mayors and governors across this country to make sure that we stop the flow of illegal guns into our city from out of state.

    But here’s the other thing, we’re witnessing an epidemic of mental health on our streets, in our shelters, on our side on our subways and we need someone who’s actually worked to get mentally ill people housed to end chronic homelessness in the city. That’s something I did as housing commissioner– we reduced the number of people sleeping on our streets and in shelter by 30%. And I led the strategy nationally that ended veteran homelessness in 80 cities. I can do that as mayor.

    – Thank you, Shaun. But before we go to Scott I wanted to ask you Scott, you have mentioned in the past a fear of going back to the Giuliani days of stop and frisk. Are you directing that at Eric Adams?

    SCOTT STRINGER: I’m certainly directing it at Eric and anybody who thinks that the only solution to preventing crime is going back to the Giuliani days with stop and frisk and a Republican agenda that put a lot of kids in our criminal justice system and many innocent kids went to prison. Look I grew up in the city. I came from Washington Heights when there were 2,000 murders a year I remember when the A train was a rolling crime scene. I’m not sending my kids or any kids back to those days.

    I want to focus police on solving violent crime and I have a community safety plan to do that. We have to make sure that we protect our children and we stop the violence and the shootings. But we also have to understand that stop and frisk is real and overpolicing in communities of color is very real. Part of what we have to also do is hold our police force to its highest standards.

    One of the things I’m going to do is reform the CCRB. When Maya was there she basically was a rubber stamp for the PBA. I’m going to take a different approach. I’m going to take police discipline away from the commissioner, focus on a new CCRB, and we’re going to transform policing. Here’s the goal, keep our streets safe, understand that policing matters, but do it in a fair and just way and let’s not go back to the days we’re going to regret.

    – Maya, I’ll give you a little bit of extra time here because I think you certainly today were not–

    ERIC ADAMS: Can I respond too yet my name was mentioned.

    MAYA WILEY: I think that time is mine now and–

    – OK. Go ahead and then we’ll go back to Eric for a rebuttal.

    MAYA WILEY: –look, there’s something that you did not say Dave in the lead up to the question about crime and it being up. And that’s that we have thousands of police officers and patrol cars sitting around this city all over this city. And this is a time when what we need to do is have smart policing.

    And smart policing means both focused on the crimes we need to focus on. One of the crimes is absolutely homicides, keeping illegal guns out of our city and off our streets but the other thing that it means is the crimes we’re not even talking about like rape, which is up 52%. And, guess what this takes me to besides smart policing and using our resources right, that we have to take away the kinds of things we’re asking police officers to do they have no business doing like mental health crisis response.

    And let me tell you why I know this because I did share the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board and am a civil rights lawyer and created a criminal Justice Initiative in post apartheid South Africa. And Scott, I am so grateful that I got the opportunity to fight just like the families were doing who have lost loved ones, including Eric Garner’s family to get that case over to the New York City Police Department with charges and to protect the civilian prosecution, the power–

    – Maya, we got to wrap up.

    MAYA WILEY: –that we have to wrap up in the CCRB be to make sure our prosecutors prosecuted the case and that’s what got him off the force finally. And I have a plan to–

    – Thankyou, Ms. Wiley.

    MAYA WILEY: –make it through civilian accountability with the civilian police commissioner because I’ll have–

    – We’ve got to change–

    MAYA WILEY: –male control of–

    – The CCRB–

    MAYA WILEY: –the New York City Police Officers

    – And the de Blasio Police Strategy. Come on.

    MAYA WILEY: And the other thing I’ll do is something you’re not talking about, which is creating a civilian oversight body that also addresses the cases that come to our police department not just the CCRB.

    – You had that opportunity as head of the CCRB and you dropped the ball.

    – We’ve got to pause here and give–

    – Can I break in here?

    – –wait. No, you can’t. We have to go back to Eric Adams because he has been directly attacked about stop and frisk. I’d like to hear 30 seconds rebuttal from Eric. Go.

    ERIC ADAMS: Listen, this is an Anthony Fauci [transcript incorrectly has “fallacy”]\ moment. Imagine years from now someone would say, hey Anthony, you did nothing for COVID. That’s how I feel right now. Where has Scott? Been I testified in federal court, the judge mentioned, my name about stop and frisk.

    I fought against stop and frisk for 22 years when I wore the uniform, that’s how New Yorkers know me. When you say Eric did not play a role to stop the abuse of stop and frisk then you are trying to rewrite history. And I feel like the Anthony fallacy right now. Scott, don’t rewrite history.

    – Go ahead.

    SCOTT STRINGER: What I said was a lot of your proposals speak to a badge and a gun first, ask questions later. That has nothing to do with stop and frisk is you know because I stood next to you at a press conference. I was one of the first leading elected officials in the city to say let’s end stop and frisk. You know I was a bit disappointed that.

    I’m talking about your criminal justice plan right now. We need to look at 911. And for a foreman, we can no longer respond to mental health complaints with over policing. We need mental health providers and experts. This is the real policing I’m going to do.

    – We’re going to wrap up there. Look, Ray–

    RAYMOND MCGUIRE: Eric, if you’re not packing maybe the thing we should do is stop and frisk out there and cease and desist here.

    – Ray, go ahead because it’s your turn to give us a minute on how you feel about how to reform the police department?

    RAYMOND MCGUIRE: –it didn’t work, right? We got 600,000 or 700,000 Black and Brown kids who were stopped, questioned, and frisked 90% of whom were found innocent with nothing. So any of those who are advocating stop and frisk today we know that is outdated it did not work. Going back to the Giuliani era stop and frisk is not something that works.

    We need to move forward. We need to look at what is today. Defund is not accurate, defund doesn’t work. If anybody knows anything about the budget, the largest increase we’ve had in the budget is $400 million that goes to administration. We haven’t included much in the budget that has to do with police patrolling.

    So what do we need to do? First, we need to get the guns off the street. Accurate, we need to get the guns off the street by whatever means necessary not stop and frisk. We have new ways. We know that– stop it– that the success that we had with getting guns off the street after stop and frisk was much higher than it was when we had stop and frisk.

    So we need to focus on the shot stopper, the shot spotters. We need to focus on training the NYPD, working with the NYPD to go where the guns are. And yes I agree, go and hit the I-95 iron pipeline working with the local, state, and federal officials where the gun get manufactured and how they all of a sudden arrive in the top 10 precincts in this city.

    MAYA WILEY: There’s one fact we’re not talking about which is that–

    – God help this city.

    MAYA WILEY: –we spend a billion on police misconduct and negligence over a three year period, a billion dollars. It’s costly to have unfair policing–

    – Maya, we’ve heard a lot from you on this. We’ve got to move.

    MAYA WILEY: –you said you would bring back stop and frisk.

    – Maya, we got to go on to Andrew Yang. Andrew, go ahead.

    ANDREW YANG: Defunding the police is not the right approach for New York City. And the fact is we have 5,000 or so police officers who submitted retirement papers so we need to go into massive recruitment drive. If you want to help make your community safe you should apply to the NYPD, we need to have a police force that reflects our great city.

    I was frustrated by the nature of the conversation around gun violence because the simple truth is you will never get gun violence down if the solve rate for shootings in Brooklyn is below 25%, which is what it is right now. You have 3 out of 4 shooters still out there. And the reason for that is just failure on the part of our government. Once again, you have detectives who are staff to a shooting and then three days later, another shooting happens and in three days another shooting happens and guess what, they cancel the first shooting.

    We need to staff up in the precinct and then the gun violence oppression division. We need to evolve to 21st century policing, have an antiviolence and community safety unit of plainclothes officers in these communities working with leaders to get the guns out, and employ focused deterrence. Because the fact is when you go to a community they know whose trouble. We can go to them and say, look if anything happens in your community we’re going to come to you first. But it starts with getting the solve up. It is unconscionable that three out of four shooters in Brooklyn are still on the loose. We will never address it unless we get that right.

    – All right, thanks Andrew. We’re going to wrap up with Dianne. And you have spoken in favor of defunding?

    DIANNE MORALES: I have in fact. And I’m actually really struck by the fact that no one on this stage has talked about the fact that we can’t actually decouple the increase in crime, whether it’s gun violence or other crime from the increased insecurities that New Yorkers have faced and encountered over the last 15 months. Our government has fundamentally failed to provide housing security, to provide food security, to provide economic security, to provide access to health care in the middle of a global pandemic. I guarantee you that if we actually provided jobs to these young people, if we actually provided economic stability to our communities that the violence that we’re witnessing would be dramatically decreased.

    That is why one of the things I’ve called for is actually the creation first of all of the community first responders department. We need to actually start responding to different crimes– homelessness, mental health, substance abuse– with appropriate responses. But we also need to provide economic security and stability to New Yorkers so they are not resorting to crime. That is one of the things we need to do to really address these issues in the short term and the long term.

    – All right Ms. Morales, thank you very much. We could spend an hour talking about crime and insecurity and what to do with the police department, whether to expand it or cut it back.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  21. BTW, Sliwa got Giuliani’s endorsement on Stephen Crowder’s show last week.

    Ranked choice voting is a scam.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  22. NJRob (eb56c3) — 6/3/2021 @ 9:31 am

    Ranked choice voting is a scam.

    When there are only two candidates, it doesn’t mean anything.

    It’s been demonstrated that sometimes, a voter ranking a candidate lower than another can result in the lower ranked preference winning because the order of elimination is different.

    https://www.cato-unbound.org/2016/12/09/jason-sorens/false-promise-instant-runoff-voting

    Think about a case with a strong third-party candidate, like Ross Perot in 1992. Suppose 35% of voters prefer Bill Clinton to George H.W. Bush to Perot, 31% prefer Bush to Clinton to Perot, and 34% prefer Perot to Bush to Clinton. If everyone votes sincerely under IRV, Clinton wins after Bush is eliminated in the first round – even though 65% of voters prefer Bush to Clinton. But it gets worse. If just a small number of Perot preferrers (>3%) put Bush first and Perot second, then Perot would be eliminated first, and Bush – their second choice – would win. They’ll have a strategic incentive to falsify their preferences.

    And ballots do get exhausted although that’s not worse than when over 60% of the voters don’t vote for the winner in a first past the post race. In this race, Andrew Yang is likely to pick up fewer second and later choice votes than Eric Adams (from voters who’s higher choices are neither of them)

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  23. Ideally, runoff elections should be made available only to the voters who chose a third-place or below candidate in the subject election, for purposes of choosing either #1 or #2. But doing that requires purple thumbprint level verification, a much more robust “receipt” than the I VOTED sticker etc…

    urbanleftbehind (3593ed)

  24. You can still get the need-to-vote-for-the-lesser-evil problem.

    …But IRV makes it easy and obvious how to vote tactically. In general, you “up-vote” your lesser-evil candidate and “bury” your lesser-evil candidate’s most viable opponent. This is just what voters do under plurality, voting tactically for the lesser evil instead of their preferred third-party candidate.

    As the Bush-Clinton-Perot example above shows, IRV can also fail to select the Condorcet winner, the candidate that a majority of voters prefer to each other candidate. In fact, this happened in Burlington’s mayoral election in 2009, causing the city to end IRV for mayoral elections when the Progressive won over the Republican in the final round of IRV counting, even though the Democrat, eliminated earlier, was actually the Condorcet winner.

    I think what it is is that you “up-vote” your lesser-evil candidate if that candidate is on the cusp of being eliminated befpre your favorite candidate, who, however, is not likely to be other people’s lesser evil.

    What happened in Burlington. Vermont, in 2009:

    https://rangevoting.org/Burlington.html

    Go through it.

    Bob KISS s the Progressive, Kurt WRIGHT is the Republican and Andy MONTROLL is the Democrat.

    Hmm, I wonder if the W>M>K voters would be pleased to know that their second choices weren’t counted, or that they could have elected M if they had voted for M as their first choice? I wonder if the Montroll supporters would be pleased to know that the voters preferred Montroll over every other candidate – including the winner that IRV chose?

    ….Despite that, IRV still seems to have performed better in this election than plain plurality voting, which (based on top-preference votes) would have elected Wright. That would have been even worse, since Wright actually was a “lose-to-all loser” among the Big Three, i.e. would have lost head-to-head races versus either Kiss or Montroll.

    … in this IRV election, Wright was a “spoiler”; if Wright had not been in the race then Montroll would have won (which the Wright voters would have preferred: 1513 were for Montroll versus 495 for Kiss).

    Actually, if this had been first-past-the-post Kiss would have been the spoiler. But it wasn’t, andd ot could be argued that, under these circumstances, Wright was the spoiler.

    Continuing:

    Any voters who voted for Wright as their favorite “without any fear of inadvertently electing Kiss” were foolish to lack such fear, because, in fact, if they instead had “calculated” right, they could have strategically voted Montroll and thus avoided electing Kiss. (That’s an example of “favorite-betrayal.”)

    There could be other elimination systems that won’t have this problem/

    What if you tried all possible orders of elimination, at least where the difference was not great?

    In Burlington, by the way, the bottom two and all write-ins were eliminated simultaneously on the grounds they did not enough lower tier votes.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  25. More argument about the effect of ranked choice voting in the 2009 Brlington ermont mayoral election:

    https://rangevoting.org/BurlResponses.html#noshow

    There’s the no show paradox.

    This discusses “range: or “score” voting.

    https://rangevoting.org/RangeVoting.html

    They claim it decreases the importance of “convincing voters you can win” (as opposed to “convincing them you are the best”

    It probably asks people to say too much.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)

  26. Argunent why unknown lunatic wins (something that actually happened in Illinois in a primary for Lt. Gov in 1986)

    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-03-20-mn-21472-story.html)

    argument why th is not a problem under range voting:

    https://rangevoting.org/BetterQuorum.html

    The argument is that many people will rank unknown candidates lowest, not no opinion. So they came with a modification. You start off with each candidate getting a number of votes at the lowest rank equal to about the maximum size of a small core group of fanatics. It’s called a “soft quorum”

    Of course you wouldn’t really get an unknown lunatic winning. You could more likely get a person whom not many people know is a lunatic.

    I know there is something else, where you subtract a vote from a candidates total, so you could vote three ways (for, abstain and against) This was used in the Republic of Venice.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1315 secs.