The two-party system flops in the 114th Assembly district
It looks like Dan Stec will take the 114th Assembly seat without a contest. And that's too bad.
The last few months, the 114th Assembly district race — in the western Adirondacks, southern Champlain Valley and the Glens Falls region — has degenerated from a spirited and hard-fought contest to a ho-hum coronation.
Queensbury town supervisor Dan Stec stared down a laundry list of Republican challengers, racking up so many endorsements and nods from party leaders that everybody else scrambled for the exits.
It was a masterful bit of politicking, but it doesn’t do voters — or the residents of the district — a darned bit of good.
The opportunity for debate, and real choice, in the GOP primary evaporated and in the end the party bosses made the pick.
Democrats have fared even worse. Essex County board of supervisors chair Randy Douglas was the obvious top name on the list to challenge for the seat. He opted out, citing family concerns and the continuing clean-up from tropical storm Irene.
But the 114th is a big district and in recent years Democrats have fared pretty well, putting up respectable numbers in any number of local races. Was there really no one else on the bench willing to take a go at it?
This wouldn’t matter so much if this chunk of New York state were humming along fine and dandy. But the truth is, there’s a lot here that deserves open debate.
This is the district that includes some of the Finch, Pruyn land that is expected to be part of a state-financed conservation deal in the next few years. It’s a district that has struggled economically.
The future approach of the Adirondack Park Agency is being debated. The Regional Economic Development Councils are still evolving. Property taxes remain a vital issue, as do state mandates.
Meanwhile, many of our small communities face big, even historic, questions about their futures.
In a healthy democracy, candidates and parties use elections to offer up fresh ideas about issues like these. We all have a chance to debate the old ideas and the old approaches.
It should come as no surprise that candidates and party leaders tend to think it’s all about who wins or loses, but it’s bigger than that.
Elections are a time when an educated and engaged community of citizens learns about the political system. We chew over the issues. We get rare, up-close access to the politicians.
It’s also a time when the candidates are forced into direct and constant intimacy with voters. They get an earful and an eyeful of life far from the muddle of Albany.
I know that Dan Stec is making a respectable job of getting around the district, meeting with people, going through the honorable motions of a real election.
But it’s not the same. I guarantee you that if there were two (or more) candidates sparring for your vote, Stec and all the others would be going at it with far more vigor.
This is also a missed opportunity because this transition — with long-time Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward stepping aside — is likely to usher in another long period of ho-hum political seasons.
Unless he messes up big time, Stec will likely cruise to re-election as long as he wants the seat. Which means that this was almost certainly going to be the last interesting, vibrant voting season for a very long time.
But alas, no dice. In every meaningful sense, the baton is being passed from Sayward to Stec without a single vote being cast.
I should say that there is absolutely nothing in Dan Stec’s record to suggest that he won’t do a great job in Albany. He appears to be thoughtful, seasoned and knowledgeable about the North Country beyond Glens Falls.
But the two parties still deserve a firm rap from voters.
Demoratic and Republican leaders (and the leaders of third parties) have a responsibility to give the rest of us a choice. Then it’s the people who are supposed to decide.
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
That’s why we need multipartyism, not the one-ish party system we have now. Vote Green. Vote Libertarian. Vote anyone other than the Republicrats. I’m sick of Politburos imposing their puppets on us. It’s disgusting.
Yes, a good example of our great democracy at work. Effectively a one-party system with no competition and re-election guaranteed. That is how it is supposed to work in Russia or a banana republic, not in the US. And certainly not in NYS. And we will just get more of the same backward looking ineffective politicians that want to follow Republican party ideology back to the 19th century.
It really would be pretty cool for a third party candidate to make a run for this seat. They just might have a shot at it.
But really, the position is almost a step down for Stec who has more real power as supervisor than he will have as a minority member of the assembly. It is probably a dead end for Stec. Someone with the bona fides to make a serious run on the Democratic side probably has other options for higher office.
The most crucial phrase in Brian’s article refers to “..an educated and engaged community of citizens…”, but we are a distracted lot, with too much television, too much beer, and too much bacon to occupy our minds. the powers that be, own our addled minds, and the real, thinking public is very small. This is how Sarah Palin got to be a VP candidate.
Third party candidates are often the most interesting, the most progressive, and the most passionate, but in our current system, they are relegated to being only able to add to the conversation during the campaign, but not having a voice in government.
Voting for the Green, or Libertarian, or other parties will only get the wrong guy elected. We would need a fundamental re-working of the rules, to allow for real representation of public opinion.
That said, I return to my first comment. The opinion of the far too easily distracted public is still up for the highest bidder.
Dan Stec seems unremarkable. His rise in politics seems like it’s been done in the back rooms. I haven’t heard him make a stand for anything other than another public office. The whole thing seems more about getting him a job with better benefits. Randy Douglas seems more focused on doing. I think it was all over when Theresa Sayword endorsed Stec. Too bad for us, no choice, no discussion of issues.
It’s something to hear you now bemoaning the lack of candidates when you argued with us here time and again about your role as a professional journalist in deciding which candidates deserve coverage and which do not.
Maybe, if third party candidates have been given the coverage they deserve by local media, we’d have stronger third parties and SOME choice at election time.
Even your main argument here- “the two parties still deserve a firm rap from voters” – is a clear indication that you still don’t seriously acknowledge that we have more than two parties, let alone equally report on them.
“Too much beer”? That hurts, ttm.
Wouldn’t it be nice if no one except Dan voted for Dan?
I never vote for a candidate running unopposed. Why humor these people?
John –
Yes, it’s true.
The reason no third party challenger has come forward to plant their flag in this election — even when the door is wide open — is that journalists like myself smothered their various movements in the cradle.
And despite our extensive coverage of the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement, it’s clear that even when people organize effectively and do a decent job of grassroots organizing, NCPR will ignore them.
That’s just what we do. We ignore interesting people doing interesting things. It’s our bread and butter.
It’s also true that people all over the world are organizing and getting their voices heard and overturning entrenched governments, despite incredible personal risk.
But we can agree that things here in the US are different. Third party efforts in the North Country are doomed because of the neglect and disrespect shown by reporters like myself.
Poor, fragile third parties…
–Brian, NCPR
Third parties are interesting, but what we really need is actual competition. One dominant party plus a bunch of minor boutique parties doesn’t provide the kind of dialogue we need. One party states/districts are notoriously corrupt. Lots of cronyism etc. “Third parties” almost by definition are not serious contenders. The most they can hope for is to throw an election to one of the major candidates, but if there is only one major candidate, they can’t even do that.
Brian,
Here is a direct quote from you from February 2009 in a comment responding to my criticism of your story “Lightning-fast 20th race pits experienced Republican against a fresh-faced Democrat” – that included no mention of the third party candidate, or links to his website, although the other two were linked.
“My job is to reflect reality in my stories. So I will be covering [Libertarian candidate] Mr. Sundwall, though I’ll generally treat him as an “issue” or a “protest” candidate. How much coverage he receives will depend on a) how interesting, thoughtful and compelling he turns out to be; and b) the degree to which his ideas influence the campaign debate.”
You have been keeping your gate closed to new ideas, new candidates and new parties, and now you’re complaining no one wants to walk through it.
If you really want competition in elections, then stop ignoring third party candidates when they do run.
John –
The quote you cite directly contradicts your conclusion.
I said that I would pay attention to Sundwall, if he turned out to do or say interesting things, or if he had an influence on the campaign.
And I did. That’s not “ignoring.”
Your broad premise — that third party movements are frail, wall-flower organizations made up of lonely-hearts club victims who wait about sadly for reporters like me to boost them into the limelight — just doesn’t wash.
We’ve seen repeatedly, with Occupy, the Tea Party, Ron Paul’s movement and on and on that when political groups get busy and do their homework, journalists respond with alacrity.
It’s also a fact that my coverage of Sundwall’s campaign was far, far more extensive than the coverage provided by Adirondack Almanack.
–Brian, NCPR
The undeniable fact is that smaller parties, no matter how well thought out or organized, face huge structural handicaps. Rigged electoral law, being one. But the other is the simple fact that the two major parties get gargantuan amounts of free media attention while the smaller parties are lucky to get one token news piece per campaign. And on top of that, the major parties use their legalized bribes (“donations”) to buy even more gargantuan amounts of paid media attention.
If you say your job is to cover political candidates, THEN COVER POLITICAL CANDIDATES. If you purport to be objective, then cover all of them, not just the two you deem to be ahead in the horse race or those you consider “interesting.” By choosing to cover candidates x and y and not z, you ARE influencing the news, not just reporting it. THIS, not liberal or conservative, is the real bias of the mainstream media.
It’s not your job to decree who’s a “viable” candidate. It’s the voters’ job. Give them all the information they need so they can do their job. That’s what you claim is your job.
Sorry Brian, I’m a consumer and member of NCPR. I want to hear news about all the candidates in any given race, not just two. It’s the only way I can make an informed decision. Occupy is not a political party. The Tea Party is not a political party. The Greens are a political party. The Libertarians are a political party.
It’s a very tired tack of journalists in the traditional media: bemoan the ills of the two major parties (which you do about every third blog posting)… but refuse to cover any of those offering actual alternatives. Complain about how things are but refuse to cover anyone offering something different.
Tootightmike: When you’re voting for the lesser of two evils, you’re still voting for an evil. There is no “wrong guy”; they’re both wrong guys.
No offense, but your mentality is why things never change. Your prescription is dead on, but you won’t actually consider voting for the only ones who actually want to implement your prescription. Makes no sense to me.
If you want things to change, then quit doing the same thing over and over.
Brian M: the Sundwall-Tedisco-Murphy race is a perfect example. NCPR was an outlier in covering Sundwall… though an NCPR.org search shows (current Green Party Congressional candidate Donald) Hassig has only been mentioned in the one story done following his candidacy announcement.
I did a piece in 2009 quantifying the media bias in the CD’s most prominent daily newspapers regarding the Sundwall-Tedisco-Murphy race. I couldn’t include Murphy in the comparison because it’s such a common name, but Sundwall and Tedisco are not:
Allow me to quote my piece: http://mofyc.blogspot.com/2009/06/media-bias-quantified.html
A 2009 Plattsburgh Press-Republican search for ‘Sundwall’ gave seven results total, two of which were identical and only two of which were local reports. Of those six unique articles, one was about Sundwall’s exclusion from the ballot, four merely mentioned in a cursory fashion that he was running and one was about his declaration of candidacy and… ZERO mentioned anything about his platform or ideas.
A 2009 P-R search of ‘Tedisco’ gave 63 results.
A 2009 Watertown Daily Times archive search of ‘Sundwall’ gave one result, about the governor’s call for the special election in which Sundwall’s name was mentioned only in passing.
A 2009 WDT archive search of ‘Tedisco’ gave 88 results.
Brian –
Your analysis is a great start, but it (like John W’s criticism) only provides half of an accurate picture.
To measure whether the media was truly biased, you would first have to document whether or not Sundwall carried out a serious, committed campaign.
Did he hold events? Did he do interesting things? Did he find ways to communicate his ideas?
If he did those things, and the media ignored him, that would be bias.
My argument here is that our recent coverage of the tea party, occupy, campaign finance and redistricting reform efforts, and the Ron Paul campaign all demonstrate that the media is willing to engage these questions when there’s actually a story to be told.
Regarding Don Hassig, the Green Party candidate running in the North Country congressional race, we reported on him most recently in September 2011 and again in February 2012.
How much we cover him in the future will depend in large measure on how actively and engagingly he campaigns.
–Brian, NCPR
Brian Mann,
Don’t put words in my mouth. I said, “Maybe, if third party candidates have been given the coverage they deserve by local media, we’d have stronger third parties and SOME choice at election time.”
Having been to many third party events and organizing meetings – I was involved in the one of the first Green Party campaigns in America in the late 1980s – your misstatement of my understanding of local politics, third parties and the media is distorting and factually incorrect.
It’s also painfully clear to anyone who has been involved in third party politics that you don’t understand the two major hurdles they face: lack of media coverage and bureaucratic barriers put in place by the two major parties. Those two complaints are perhaps the most oft-repeated by third party candidates.
The idea that Sundwell didn’t run a serious campaign is ridiculous. Unless of course, by serious you mean backed by corporate money and the two major parties.
And also, your “actively and engagingly” campaigning standard is nonsense. You don’t hold that standard for any other arena you report on, and in fact, it’s unethical for a professional journalists to do so according to the Society of Professional Journalists:
“Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender… or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless…”
If you stop being the arbiter of who and what matters in politics, you might find we’ll have more choices at election time, but even if we don’t, you’ll be better serving your audience.
John –
Just plain pish. Balderdash. Rubbish. I didn’t put words in your mouth, and you’re not the victim of a slight.
You piled onto MY reporting, in a way that was incredibly superficial and I said as much.
We provide far more and far better coverage of third parties and non-traditional political movements than the Adirondack Almanack.
Our coverage of Occupy, the Tea Party and other movements demonstrates as much.
I will say it one more time: When candidate, parties or movements bother to organize and get active, we will cover them.
As we have shown.
— Brian, NCPR
What about Howie Hawkins in our last election for governor? He was a serious candidate with serious ideas but very little coverage.
What about Buddy Roemer in this season’s Republican primaries? Why was he almost completely ignored, except in stories from the REAL liberal media like Democracy Now?
How about Doug Hoffman in the last two congressional elections giving Bill Owens a chance, or Ralph Nader famously taking enough votes from Al Gore in Florida to get George Bush elected president. They got lots of attention.
“Did he hold events? Did he do interesting things? Did he find ways to communicate his ideas?”
First, you keep conflating the Tea Party and Occupy with political parties. They are, in fact, movements. They are worth covering. They influence political parties (or least they hope to). But they are not political parties themselves.
Second, yes, he held events (I attended one). He was an interesting, engaged candidates who was pretty good at communicating his ideas. I didn’t agree with many of them but my blog gave his event more coverage than the print Post-Star (one article to zero).
Howie Hawkins, from a different party than Sundwall, was another who held events (I’ve attended a few of his over the years), had some pretty novel ideas and was a very substantive communicator. He took questions from the public in an open, engaging way I’ve NEVER seen a Democrat or Republican running for a major office do. He was also ignored. Interestingly, he ran for City Council in Syracuse, actually got a (sort of) fair amount of media attention and garnered 47% of the vote.
The bottom line is that mainstream journalists view money and party infrastructure as the sole mark of “seriousness,” an extension of the whole inane horse race mentality that governs political journalism (Post-Star front page today: an AP ‘analysis’ saying that Soccer Player Obama is not nearly as popular as Big Jock Football Player Cuomo or Head Cheerleader Hillary). This is why they ignore smaller party candidates almost completely… unless those candidates happen to have personal fortunes (ie: Golisano) or huge name recognition (ie: Jesse Ventura).
30% of the voters in this nation are smaller party or independent. Those candidates get far less than 1% of the coverage. This under-serving of the audience is a significant reason why the trust in the media is going down. You (the news media in general, more so than NCPR in particular) is not giving them the information they feel they need to make a fully informed decision.
And by the way, your questions like “did he hold events? Did he communicate…” etc. reflect your double standard?
The Democrats have often run sacrificial lambs against people like Betty Little. You’ve ALWAYS covered these races in the same way you’d cover any other race, giving both the Littles and the lambs a decent amount of coverage and fair treatment. You do this even when the sacrificial lambs run little more than token campaigns or are only really coherent on a couple of issues.
You know in your gut that the Democrat lamb isn’t going to win, but you still go through the motions of trying to cover him fairly anyways. All I’m demanding is that you apply the same standard to any candidate, major party or not.
The bottom line is that no media outlet can call their coverage fair if they don’t give coverage to all the candidates running, whether they fiat them “viable” or not. No amount of excuse making or hemming and hawing changes that.
Unless they’re using the Fox News (sic) definition of fair.
The proof of the pudding is in the cake. In our de facto 1 1/4 party system, voters are so disaffected that only 50-55% bother to turn out in presidential election years, many grudgingly. The figure is much less in other years.
Every other western democracy has effective multipartyism – we’re the only one with only two parties represented in our national legislature – and they ALL have higher voter turnout rates than us. The lowest rate in the EU is Estonia at 69%.
It’s often been reported that the gerrymandering in Albany is bipartisan, which is why it never changes, no matter how many pinky swears Ed Koch’s group collects.
Voters (and the media who complain about what they call the dysfunction) keep doing the same thing over and over and being mystified that different results do not magically occur. Benjamin Franklin described this as stupidity.
Brian MOFYC: “The Democrats have often run sacrificial lambs against people like Betty Little.”
I wouldn’t say that is strictly true. I think Tim Merrick was a serious candidate, more of a ram than a lamb. But the Democratic party itself provided a thicket to catch his horns in. It was interesting to find out later in campaign disclosure filings that Larry Bulman, the head of the Plumbers and Steamfitters local and the Dem party boss in Saratoga county was a top contributor to Betty Little both through the union and through his own personal funds.
The Republicans and Democrats carved most of the country into safe districts for one side or the other and have a gentleman’s agreement not to contest many offices. The good thing about real third parties is that they break the unspoken rules of the game that the 2 major parties and the media play by.