A Real New York Mayoral Election

For the first time in a long time, the nation’s largest city may be treated to a genuinely competitive 2025 general election for mayor: former Gov. Andrew Cuomo vs. incumbent Eric Adams vs. Republican Curtis Sliwa vs. independent Jim Walden vs. a still-to-be-determined candidate running under the Working Families Party line. More competition should yield more media and public attention, higher voter turnout and ultimately a more engaged citizenry. 

But we arrived at this place by anomaly, not design. The question is how to reform our municipal democracy so that competitive general elections become the norm and not the exception.

First, a quick primer on how things usually work, and why they generally don’t work well.

New York City has 4.7 million active voters, about 3.1 million of whom are registered Democrats. Republicans number just 523,000, and unaffiliated independent voters about 1 million. Put differently, the city electorate is two-thirds Democratic, about 11% Republican and about 21% independent.

No question, Democrats dominate our politics and probably would continue to do so any way we cut it. (The last two competitive elections were when Democratic standard-bearers ran against billionaire Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent Michael Bloomberg.) But the rules of the game distort things further, like spotting the home team an extra few runs in every game — while paradoxically also benefiting the Republicans by granting a guaranteed general election slot to whoever wins the Republican primary, often with a minuscule number of votes.

How? Nominees for the general election emerge from closed primaries where only party members can vote. These primaries occur on odd, off-years, in mid-September or even in the summer — this year, it’s June 24 — which means turnout is abysmally low. In 2013, the year that yielded Bill de Blasio, about 20% of registered Democrats turned out for the primary. In 1997, as Democrats rallied to deny Rudy Giuliani a second term, it was around 15%. 

What passes for robust primary participation: 1989, the year David Dinkins beat Ed Koch, and 2021, in which Eric Adams edged out Kathryn Garcia. About a quarter of city Democrats voted in each case. No matter how much political spin you apply, it is hard to argue that this amounts to a popular mandate.

Whoever wins the Democratic primary typically enjoys a leisurely stroll to victory in a pro forma November general election where far fewer voters turn out than should — typically less than 25% — no doubt in part because the electorate knows that the results are essentially a Bald Bull vs. Glass Joe matchup pitting a dominant Dem against a punching-bag Republican. Eric Adams coasted in November 2021 with 67% of the vote; Bill de Blasio, with 73% and 66% in 2013 and 2017, respectively. The appearance of a left-leaning billionaire independent or the rare, timely rise of a credible liberal Republican in a moment of crisis are the only things that have disrupted the pattern.

So, more often than not, a few hundred thousand people choose the mayor for our city of 8.5 million, giving outsized influence to public-sector unions, interest groups and others who control large voting blocs.

Equally problematic is how the general election, which should showcase the two most popular candidates, automatically reserves a spot for the winner of the Republican primary. Curtis Sliwa netted a paltry 40,000 votes in the GOP primary in 2021 — but those totals were enough to get him through to the final round, while Kathryn Garcia, who got nearly 400,000 votes in the Democratic primary and may well have been appealing to Republicans and independents, was not on the November ballot.

Meantime, independents, more than a fifth of the city’s electorate, have no primary of their own, relegating them to spectator status in the decisive early phases. While unaffiliated candidates can technically appear on the November ballot, without the party label, they’re effectively doomed to sideshow irrelevance unless they have Bloomberg-level resources or name recognition.

(These structural problems multiply for City Council and other local races, which generate even less voter attention and participation.)

Why did this year wind up different? Happenstance. The incumbent mayor, a Democrat, happened to be indicted on federal corruption charges, and that federal indictment then happened to get dismissed by a corrupt presidential administration, resulting in a situation in which Eric Adams was doomed to lose the primary but still had a puncher’s chance running as an independent under a custom-made “Safe Streets, Affordable City” general election ballot line. Add to that the fact that the Working Families Party, which has a significant voice in local elections, can’t stomach Cuomo and might choose to run one of its four endorsees, perhaps the charismatic Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, in the general.

With that array of competitors, while the former governor is now dominating Democratic primary polls and would at this point be the wise wager for any bettor looking forward to November, it’s less likely he’ll be allowed to coast. The spotlight will burn brighter and the voters will lean in closer. That’s the way it ought to be in a real democracy.

How can we institutionalize such democratic vitality rather than reverting to our undemocratic norm? 

Start by moving city elections from off-off years to align them with congressional or presidential election years, to piggyback on higher-profile contests and ensure robust turnout. Turnout in presidential election years often tops 60%.

Then, have an all-comers, “jungle” primary in which candidates compete regardless of their party affiliation — and all voters can turn out. Make it ranked-choice, like party primaries already are, so that it’s not zero-sum. And to make turnout easier still, schedule it in September, not in the heat of the summer. (It’s the State Legislature in Albany, now dominated by Democrats, that sets the calendar.)

Lastly, make the November general election a contest between the top three, four or five finishers in that all-comers primary. That might mean that a bunch of Democrats are competing against one another in the general; or perhaps an independent or Republican would crash the party. Regardless, it would produce a genuine competition between those with the most popular support, which will likely engender more interest, more civic engagement, less playing to the partisan base — and ultimately, better local government.

Some such democracy-enhancing reforms are currently under consideration by Mayor Adams’ Charter Revision Commission, a body tasked with recommending improvements to our city’s foundational legal document. While the changes would ironically need to be approved in yet another low-turnout election, they represent our best chance to build a more responsive, representative and engaging democracy. The question isn’t whether we need these changes — it’s how long we can really afford to keep operating under the broken status quo.