Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Helpful Politics Nerd's avatar

Vote counting and deciding what to move to floor is a complex calculation.

In this case (I am guessing) the calculation was not to put their members at risk of attacks from the powerful real estate industry (while housing advocates wont be completely happy either since the "grand bargain" they would have passed certainly won't have close to everything advocates are asking for) , all to get a veto from the gov, where no doubt her posture would have been the bill doesn't go far enough even though she doesn't want that either. Moreover, if the legislators that are on the fence now vote for the deal and it gets vetoed and is reopened next year, next time around they'll have limited flexibility externally (having already voted on the things in the bill), and limited leverage internally (having already shown their cards on the table).

So as they strategize to balance policy and politics, on controversial bills you have all sorts of legislators, those:

- who will not vote for a bill if there is no 3way deal to make it law (they don't want to risk backlash from industry unless it means something)

- who will not vote for a bill if there IS a deal, they'd only vote if it'll be vetoed or passes only one house (they feel the pressure from district but don't agree with policy)

- who will vote yes and then push everyone to be confrontational with Gov, risking other negotiations, and will also call their colleagues out in order to increase vote count (they believe in the principle, but they won't factor that other things can be derailed that might matter more to other people - so they'll happily risk the legislature's ability to get criminal justice or health priorities or something else in play, for housing policy since they made that the focus of their career or are closer to advocates in that space)

- who will vote no but internally say yes (they agree with the policy but their electoral politics doesn't allow it)

- who will vote yes only if there are a few extra votes lined up (They cant be the deciding votes but can justify of the passage is a foregone conclusion)

- who will vote no, no matter what, and would press their colleagues to say no as well (they can also backchannel with the gov or assembly to press them to not accept the deal to tank it but also depress the votes in their house as well)

- who will say yes publicly but internally say no and will ask their leadership not make them vote

The list is not exhaustive and there is some overlap of course, but the point is that vote counting isn't really just tallying the yes votes and move the bill to the floor.

Expand full comment
David Turner's avatar

So much blame to go around. Hochul didn't try to build any support for her housing plan, and appeared uninterested in any legislating beyond bail reform, increasing charters, and the cost of CUNY/SUNY. Embarrassing, especially with a state with a nearly quarter TRILLION dollar budget. Hochul, and Adams for that matter, lack of basic political imagination or will to either push for a stronger vision of our city/state, or even coordinate amongst other electeds. Can we at least get the assembly/senate to committee to their proposed budget or some set of bills that implies they'll challenge Hochul to veto measures put on her desk...

Expand full comment
22 more comments...

No posts