Anyway, what I'd actually like to see is data from places that instituted this (California, IIRC?) on the impacts.

And e.g. for governor we might've gotten Charlie Baker vs a progressive, instead of a Democrat who is basically a Charlie Baker clone.

I don't have a strong opinion on the ballot initiative, mind you. But the current system is _awful_ and my baseline assumption is that having meaningful choices make politics much more salient to people, and offers the opportunity to increase political engagement.

Maybe not the best example of "might get progressives elected", then. But I do think there are a bunch of currently get-elected-automatically positions that would actually be competitive under this. If you have an actual choice it increases turnout and can change the electorate.

I thought about it a bunch when someone asked me to sign the ballot initiative, and... it seemed fine? Like, Jake Auchincloss would've had a competitor when he got just 18% of the vote?

Not sure if it comes up, but my understanding is that the popolo were still a small and privileged minority of the overall population.

!!! That's like the final boss in a video game.

Have they deployed Sideways Cart Protocol?

And it is a real holiday. It had a resolution passed in Congress, and around here it's heavily commercialized as befits a true American holiday: www.wcvb.com/article/on-p...

All the people standing in line this morning at Petsi Pies agree.

The goal is definitely to be accessible to anyone, yes, will share draft when I have something.

It'd make things worse is my guess.

1. Many ward councillors in Somerville run unopposed, which depresses voting turnout (see also Boston's turnout, with Wu unopposed).
2. It makes it much harder for renters to run, and incentivizes ward councillors to overweigh homeowners' opinions even more.

Just need to emphasize the overall political picture, so even if it fails in short term, people don't get discouraged and understand how it fits into a long term project of political change.

(Sorry for all the words, I am thinking out loud for working paper on increasing political engagement).

That being said, even if social housing in the short term is unworkable policy due to austerity, it's still worth a hard push far separately from whether it succeeds as a policy. Since insofar as it gets more people politically engaged, that makes it easier to pass it long term.

To clarify: the only time I've seen _public comment_ go for hours, at least somewhat spontaneously without large group organizing it, was Councilor Zondervan's freezing of police budget (in 2020 I guess?).

And, have Somerville and Boston had better policing policies than Cambridge because they have an elected Mayor? No.

But Cambridge did implement a community safety department (reluctantly!) because of massive public pressure, the only time I've seen a city council meeting go for hours spontaneously.

This is why I think the anti-Plan-E approach was misguided. Reflexive support for police comes from the Council (see the original 6-3 vote on Flock rollout bullshit). Support for low taxes comes from the Council. If the same voters elect a mayor, the mayor will still support police and low taxes.

1. The Council has a lot of power when they choose to exercise it. Like it or hate it, Cycling Safety Ordinance did not come from the manager, nor did multi-family upzoning or AHO 2.0.

2. The City Manager _is_ a good excuse for Councilors who don't want to admit they are the problem.

Unfortunately Cambridge City Council has a majority who will not budget on austerity. Which is why I think increasing political engagement and voter turnout is a critical goal (and also why I think the Cambridge DSA spending time fighting the Plan E form of government was a waste of time.)