While there were two political parties, the Communists won every office handily. The elections were shams, fixed so that only Communist Party members could win.
As Americans, we take pride in our free electoral system. We question, however, how free New York State legislative elections really are.
We could make the same joke about our Legislature as people in the now-defunct Soviet Union did about the Politburo. Who's going to win this year?
In the Senate and Assembly, the incumbency rate hovers over 98 percent, far greater than anywhere else in the nation. According to The New York Times, our state legislators are as likely to die in office as they are to lose a race. Talk about job security.
Republicans enjoy a solid 36-to-25 majority in the Senate, which they have held for all but one of the past 63 years, while Democrats command a 97-to-52 majority in the Assembly, which they have controlled since 1974.
One would assume that our Legislature's job performance was nearly perfect. Yet, our state is struggling with multi-billion-dollar budget deficits, while the Assembly speaker, the Senate majority leader and the governor jockey for advantage behind closed doors.
For the past 18 years, the Legislature and governor have brought the state budget in late -- often months late -- causing chaos among school districts forced to guess at state-aid levels when crafting their own spending plans. This year, several key votes on important legislation were pushed back until December -- after the election -- with the obvious intention of giving their opponents as little campaign ammunition as possible.
Why do so many of our state legislators engage in such bitter partisan politics while disregarding their constituents' best interests?
Frankly, because they can, knowing full well they will win re-election, no matter what state New York is in.
We do not wish to diminish any individual legislator's accomplishments. There are, indeed, shining examples of concerned, caring state lawmakers representing Long Island's South Shore.
That's why we are writing this after the elections, to avoid any suggestion that we are criticizing a particular legislator or political party.
We are taking aim at the system, the nearly-feudal system that ensconces state lawmakers in their seats for life. These local potentates then turn around and -- noblesse oblige -- dole out discretionary grants of our own tax dollars back to us serfs. Not quite bread and circuses -- but not that far from it.
We need reform -- desperately.
¥ For starters, the Assembly and Senate shouldn't control their own redistricting as they do now.
Every 10 years, after the U.S. Census, the Legislature maps out state election districts anew. The Assembly carves up the state to ensure Democratic control of its house, and Republicans do the same in the Senate, gerrymandering districts wherever needed to maintain the status quo. Redistricting should belong to a neutral third party, such as a court-appointed special master or a bipartisan commission.
¥ State lawmakers also receive tens of thousands of dollars in "discretionary funds," particularly if they sit with the majority party. Legislators are free to hand out these monies to whatever local service groups they wish. Most often, they are delivered sometime between September and November during an election year.
Groups that receive discretionary funds inevitably feel beholden to the assembly member or senator who "won" them the monies, which are many times called special state grants. Such groups then actively campaign for the incumbents by continually reminding members about the monies that their local legislator brought home. Such pork-barrel spending buys our state lawmakers thousands of votes, giving them a terribly unfair advantage over challengers.
Discretionary spending gives legislators the latitude to aid our most-vital service organizations, many of which wouldn't be around without these monies; we're not suggesting they be eliminated altogether. Criteria, however, should be developed to determine eligibility for the funds -- without regard to party affiliation -- and the Legislature should impanel a bipartisan oversight committee to review discretionary grants. And, legislators shouldn't be allowed to squirrel away these monies to hand out during election season.
¥ Finally, in order to have meaningful elections -- ones that offer voters a real choice -- the parties must nominate and support qualified candidates in all races.
Since the early 1980s, the two "opposing" parties have tacitly agreed -- call it a gentleman's agreement -- not to run viable candidates when seeking office in a "safe" district in the other's house.
So, Democrats often put up candidates with little to no experience needed for elected office when seeking a Senate seat, and the party gives them few, if any resources to launch credible campaigns. The same can be said of Republicans seeking Assembly seats -- though here on the GOP-dominated South Shore, many Assembly districts are considered Republican seats.
This old-school pact subverts our electoral process. It destroys the vibrant exchange of ideas that should arise out of campaigns -- the very exchange that our nation's founders believed would guide the United States for centuries. It demoralizes the electorate and makes voting seem irrelevant.
The Legislature needs fundamental change, and it won't come at the voting booth. After all, if the parties aren't putting up real challengers for election, we're left with little choice but to vote for incumbents -- or not vote at all.
The state Legislature must return to the governmental principles and practices upon which our country has survived and thrived for 226 years. Citizens from across the political, demographic and geographic spectrums of New York are becoming increasingly vocal in their disgust with the way Albany does business.
Add our voice to that growing chorus of frustration.
