Public financing for elections, a mismatch between candidates and (funds/personnel for) journalism, and one possible solution
So, we just had a (yet unresolved) primary election with a lot of candidates for Mayor/Borough President/City Council/etc., many who persevered though, after a certain point, they were clearly not serious contenders. It's not easy to run for office, so in one sense they deserve kudos---- and the mayoral candidates, for example, had to develop sophisticated policy platforms. Then again, some candidates may be running not to win, but, depending on the office, to position themselves for a run at a later date, or to get a job in a new administration. And the public spent nearly $110 million on it. As Daily News columnist Harry Siegel put it , the "generous public matching funds [made] each campaign its own little patronage operation." Was it worth it? This is two months worth of police overtime in the City. Spending on the institutions of representative democracy - elected representative and their staff, election infrastructure, matching funds - remains one the best ...