Venice introduced an electoral college system in 1172. I believe that their earlier system was direct elections, but I’ve never seen a very clear claim. This seems to claim so.
Thanks, I’ll check that out. I live in a mostly rural state that elected—let’s just say a governor for whom most of the state did not vote—because of the cityots in a couple districts. I don’t actually think I could make it happen, but it’ll aid my fantasy ;)
a governor for whom most of the state did not vote
Most of the people in the state did vote for him. Your basic problem is that a lot of people live in NYC and suburbs and not a lot live upstate. To overcome this just an electoral college won’t be sufficient—you will need something equivalent to the Senate election system where the number of people in a political unit is ignored.
Well quite. I don’t even think it’s necessarily a good idea (unlike making NYC part of NJ. They have nothing in common with New Yorkers, but full disclosure I am in the only profitable county in the state so it’s my tax dollars getting funneled down there.), it’s just fun to think about. My grandpa said it best—okay maybe not but at least well—“We live in one of the best parts of one of the worst states in one of the best countries in the world.”
Update: Gov’s office didn’t dig up the study. On facts in evidence, including a closer look at whatall is included in Manhattan, my most plausible explanation is that the study results were not what I remember, whether that was misdirection or misremembering. Even though I could see a case for the tax draws being even bigger, it doesn’t overcome the prima facie implausibility.
Thanks for the update; “it ain’t what you don’t know but what you know that ain’t so that kills ya,” as I’ve seen attributed to Twain (but every quote has been attributed to Twain so grain of salt)
On facts in evidence, including a closer look at whatall is included in Manhattan, my most plausible explanation is that the study results were not what I remember
One more possible explanation. NY state is not the most coherent organization and I’ve seen sets of statistics for NY counties that just did not include NYC boroughs. Evidently, even though they are counties, they are considered a special enough case to just ignore them on occasion. So maybe your study just said in a small footnote somewhere “Oh, we’ll pretend NYC does not exist”.
By the way, you might find this report interesting.
Yeah, even scrolling up to my own comment, referring to NY as a “mostly rural state” only works since in most cases with which I interact, the NYC residents don’t count as TRUE Scottsmen… ;)
Edit to comment on link also:
Wow, that is definitely NOT the data I remember. Older, but still. Thanks for that. It all started in a stockholders’ meeting for my family’s business (employing 2500-7500 people largely in what this report calls the capital district depending how you count) so motivation for bad data is not hard to identify. This year’s meeting is in a few weeks and I’ll definitely be bringing this up. Thanks as usual.
I have no real knowledge of the subdistricts of NYC, I just know that it is a net loss as a whole (Edited to add: Lum hadn’t stated in above post that NYC bureaus were counties when I wrote this, it was edited in, so don’t think I’m ignoring it). I would not be surprised if one could slice out a profitable part of any county or cetera. Heck, as an extreme, draw a circle around the one richest guy and (maybe...) you’ve got a subset that’s profitable. But any surplus in one city subdistrict is outweighed by the costs in the others, as of I think 2010 so might have changed.
I’ll see if I can dig up the study; it was sent to me by the governor’s office but not created by them so it might take a bit to remember for what to search. I know Saratoga county was (and had been but we’re starting to rely more heavily on my memory than I’m comfortable doing) the only county that generated more tax dollars than it consumed.
Huh, thanks for that, I didn’t know. In that case, no, it turns out it draws more tax dollars than it generates. I know the study was county by county.
I’ve only been to NYC a half dozen or so times, and just thought of it as NYC. I know there are bureaus, but I really don’t know Manhattan from Long Island or Haarlem from Poughkeepsie (okay, ignorance exaggerated for comedic hyperbole; I know the last isn’t TECHNICALLY NYC but for most of my intents and purposes I treat it thus), though from context I assume Manhattan includes Wall Street. Depending how much else it includes, my confidence in the study drops.
I wanted to get ahold of it for you, and now I want to get it for me too :) Google fu failed but I asked Gov’s office if they remember so I’ll let you know when they get back to me.
Venice introduced an electoral college system in 1172. I believe that their earlier system was direct elections, but I’ve never seen a very clear claim. This seems to claim so.
Thanks, I’ll check that out. I live in a mostly rural state that elected—let’s just say a governor for whom most of the state did not vote—because of the cityots in a couple districts. I don’t actually think I could make it happen, but it’ll aid my fantasy ;)
Most of the people in the state did vote for him. Your basic problem is that a lot of people live in NYC and suburbs and not a lot live upstate. To overcome this just an electoral college won’t be sufficient—you will need something equivalent to the Senate election system where the number of people in a political unit is ignored.
Well quite. I don’t even think it’s necessarily a good idea (unlike making NYC part of NJ. They have nothing in common with New Yorkers, but full disclosure I am in the only profitable county in the state so it’s my tax dollars getting funneled down there.), it’s just fun to think about. My grandpa said it best—okay maybe not but at least well—“We live in one of the best parts of one of the worst states in one of the best countries in the world.”
You think Manhattan (which is, technically speaking, a county) doesn’t pay its own way?
Update: Gov’s office didn’t dig up the study. On facts in evidence, including a closer look at whatall is included in Manhattan, my most plausible explanation is that the study results were not what I remember, whether that was misdirection or misremembering. Even though I could see a case for the tax draws being even bigger, it doesn’t overcome the prima facie implausibility.
Thanks for the update; “it ain’t what you don’t know but what you know that ain’t so that kills ya,” as I’ve seen attributed to Twain (but every quote has been attributed to Twain so grain of salt)
One more possible explanation. NY state is not the most coherent organization and I’ve seen sets of statistics for NY counties that just did not include NYC boroughs. Evidently, even though they are counties, they are considered a special enough case to just ignore them on occasion. So maybe your study just said in a small footnote somewhere “Oh, we’ll pretend NYC does not exist”.
By the way, you might find this report interesting.
Yeah, even scrolling up to my own comment, referring to NY as a “mostly rural state” only works since in most cases with which I interact, the NYC residents don’t count as TRUE Scottsmen… ;)
Edit to comment on link also: Wow, that is definitely NOT the data I remember. Older, but still. Thanks for that. It all started in a stockholders’ meeting for my family’s business (employing 2500-7500 people largely in what this report calls the capital district depending how you count) so motivation for bad data is not hard to identify. This year’s meeting is in a few weeks and I’ll definitely be bringing this up. Thanks as usual.
I have no real knowledge of the subdistricts of NYC, I just know that it is a net loss as a whole (Edited to add: Lum hadn’t stated in above post that NYC bureaus were counties when I wrote this, it was edited in, so don’t think I’m ignoring it). I would not be surprised if one could slice out a profitable part of any county or cetera. Heck, as an extreme, draw a circle around the one richest guy and (maybe...) you’ve got a subset that’s profitable. But any surplus in one city subdistrict is outweighed by the costs in the others, as of I think 2010 so might have changed.
I’ll see if I can dig up the study; it was sent to me by the governor’s office but not created by them so it might take a bit to remember for what to search. I know Saratoga county was (and had been but we’re starting to rely more heavily on my memory than I’m comfortable doing) the only county that generated more tax dollars than it consumed.
The five boroughs of NYC are all bona fide New York state counties. Manhattan is its own county named “New York county” :-/
Huh, thanks for that, I didn’t know. In that case, no, it turns out it draws more tax dollars than it generates. I know the study was county by county.
I’ve only been to NYC a half dozen or so times, and just thought of it as NYC. I know there are bureaus, but I really don’t know Manhattan from Long Island or Haarlem from Poughkeepsie (okay, ignorance exaggerated for comedic hyperbole; I know the last isn’t TECHNICALLY NYC but for most of my intents and purposes I treat it thus), though from context I assume Manhattan includes Wall Street. Depending how much else it includes, my confidence in the study drops.
I wanted to get ahold of it for you, and now I want to get it for me too :) Google fu failed but I asked Gov’s office if they remember so I’ll let you know when they get back to me.