Tangle - PREVIEW: Will Kaback talks with John Ketcham

Episode Date: November 4, 2025

On this special Election Day episode, we delve into the complexities of New York City's mayoral race and its broader implications for the Democratic Party and election reform nationwide. Senior Editor Will Kaback interviews John Ketcham, Senior Fellow and Director of Cities at the Manhattan Institute, exploring the challenges of closed primary systems and the disconnect between public support for reform and political action. This conversation aims to shed light on the national debate over election systems and primary reform and how these issues could shape the future of American politics.By the way: If you are not yet a podcast member, and you want to upgrade your newsletter subscription plan to include a podcast membership (which gets you ad-free podcasts, Friday editions, The Sunday podcast, bonus content), you can do that here. That page is a good resource for managing your Tangle subscription (just make sure you are logged in on the website!)Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was hosted by Will Kaback and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Jon Lall.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of our take. My name is Will Keback. I'm Tangle Senior Editor. And today we're coming to you with a special interview on Election Day 2025. There are a few notable races taking place across the country, but perhaps none is more notable than New York City's mayoral election, which is pitting Democrat Zoran Mamdani against Andrew Cuomo, who Mamdani defeated in the Democratic primary. Cuomo is now running as an independent. And Curtis Sliwa, potentially acting as a spoiler on the Republican. side. It's a race that has inspired quite a bit of national conversation about the direction of the Democratic Party should Mom Donnie win, which he's expected to, as well as how the outcome of the race could have ripple effects in our broader politics. However, one aspect of this election that isn't being discussed as much is actually how these candidates came to be on the general election ballot. And that conversation has to do with primary reform and the election systems

that New York City uses in its elections. So, in advance of the election, I spoke with John Ketchum, who is a legal policy fellow and director of cities at the Manhattan Institute. His areas of expertise include housing, local elections, infrastructure, parental rights, and more, but we spoke specifically about this year's election and election reform. The conversation explores the complexities of this issue. In New York City specifically, but also nationwide, we talk about some of the election. of the challenges that are posed by a closed primary system, the entrenched political interests that

are fighting on either side of this debate, and the disconnect that exists between the public support for reform and the actual political action that we're seeing. So again, this is a topic that's focused on New York City, but really has ramifications for the country as a whole, particularly as it relates to the primary reform movement in the United States. So today, on election Day, we thought it would be the perfect opportunity to release this conversation and let you hear what Ketchum has to say about how he thinks the city, the state, and the country writ large should move forward. So without further ado, here's my interview with the Manhattan Institute's John Ketchum.

So to start, I just kind of alluded to the state of play of primary reform in the United States. I know you focus on New York City. I'd be interested to hear your impression of where things stand on primary reform in the city, specifically on the issues that you're focused on. I've read some of your recent analysis of polling data from the Democratic primary that happened in June. But more broadly, what do you focus on and what's the latest on them? Sure. Well, thanks for having me, Will. Really great to be with you. Let me set the stage. New York City has a closed primary system, which means that those who are registered with a political party can vote in that party's primary.

So there are about six Democrats for every Republican in New York City, which basically means that in most elections, the only one that matters is the Democratic Party primary. The winner of that election goes on to an easy November general election. And so that system produces some consequences. There are over 1.1 million voters who are registered but unaffiliated with any political party. They cannot vote in any primary ever. Then there are also those who are registered with smaller parties, like the Working Families Party or the Conservative Party,

that also don't vote in primaries because their party doesn't hold one. This year, we didn't even have a party primary for the Republicans. They simply nominated Curtis Slewa. So New York City is also uniquely restrictive in the way that it treats party registration before primaries. So the deadline to change your party to participate in the most recent June election was February 14th. That's 132 days before the primary and by far the longest. So just for context, Florida has a 29-day party change. limit, and Pennsylvania has a 15-day limit.

So this was the environment in which ranked choice voting was adopted back in 2019 for local elections and for special elections. But it was integrated into this bigger electoral structure that still includes the closed primaries and off-year or odd-year elections. And RCV simply couldn't address those challenges and the problems that those systems cause, and we can go into that. But in some, I don't think that electoral reform has bright prospects in terms of primary reform in New York City. We can describe some of the interest group dynamics that make it. Yeah, I'd be interested to do that. I'd also be interested

to hear one of the things I read before our conversation was your analysis on polling data on electoral reforms among New Yorkers. And you showed just from In 2024 to this year, there's been kind of a notable increase in support for an open primary or a nonpartisan primary as preferable to the current system. But at the same time, the Charter Revision Commission rejected a proposal along those lines. So it does seem like there is a bit of a disconnect between public support for this and what's actually happening. So can you speak to why that might be? And maybe that'll dovetail with what you're just alluding to. Sure. Well, Manhattan Institute, my employer, has done some polling on New Yorkers and their appetite for

electoral reform. And it turns out that they do want to change the local electoral structure. So, for example, 23% of Democrats reported in the January 25 poll that we conducted that they're registered as Democrats only to participate in the Democratic primary, because they want their vote to count for something. They know that it's the most important election in town. About 40% of New Yorkers believe it's not worth voting in general elections because the winner of the Democratic Party primary typically goes on to an easy victory in November. And when asked what they prefer between a nonpartisan or all candidate primary, top two primary, and an open primary versus a closed primary, 37% favored the nonpartisan primary, the most open variety. 30% wanted an open

primary and 19% wanted to retain the current closed system. So there is a broad appetite for electoral reform in New York City. Now, why aren't we getting it? Well, it has to do in large part with the powers that be that are already benefiting from the current system, the entrenched interests. Now, this holds true nationally as well. Those who benefit from a system are hesitant to change that system, of course. And so incumbent politicians are always, looking to maximize their electoral advantage, and they see some changes as a potential threat. But there's also a more subtle dynamic in New York City, because we have very powerful interest groups, interest groups including unions. And those unions and other groups know how to manipulate

the system in ways that perpetuate their grip on political power in the city. And I can give you an example. Maybe you or your viewers have tried to book a hotel in New York City recently, and you probably notice it's really expensive. Well, it is. Yeah, it's basically impossible to build new hotels in New York City. And it just so happens that the city has an enormously powerful hotel workers union called the Hotel Gaming and Trades Council, or the HTC. And this group has been wildly successful in eliminating competition over the last decade. They've done so by being very prominent political supporters of Bill de Blasio and then of Mayor Adams. And they have essentially co-opted, in large part, the city council and other elected leaders to do their

bidding for them. So in order to build a new hotel, you need to have a special permit that the city council has to grant. And of course, in order to get this special permit, you need to promise as a developer and then as an operator to use union labor. They've also been very successful in severely restricting Airbnb in New York City, which is another source of competition for the hotels in which their union workers operate. So it's all the way of eliminating competition and protecting their share of the economic pie at the expense of growth. And that's what I'm most worried about. It's the potential to stymie growth in service of a more fixed sum, zero-sum kind of alternative

that can imperil the city's vibrancy and dynamism. We'll be right back after this quick commercial break. So is the idea that groups like these unions, they understand how the electoral system works under the status quo, and they understand how to use their leverage to maximize the chances that they'll have a candidate favorable to them? Absolutely. So to give an example, New York City has odd year elections, right? we're having a mayoral election right now. And that has been shown across the board to depress voter turnout.

So off-year or off-cycle local elections have half to a third of the turnout that even-year elections have. And in New York City, this certainly holds true. So we typically range between, you know, 23 to 20, percent or so in terms of turnout for primary and general election. The most recent primary did see a significant bump to 32 percent, but that was lauded as a major improvement. It was still 32 percent, right? Of only registered Democrats, I should say, not of the total denominator of registered voters because of our closed primary. So what does that mean? It means that special

interests like unions can influence elections with relatively little resources and with fewer members than they would if they had to compete in a broader universe of all registered voters. They simply need to sway fewer people to vote for the candidates that they like in a lower turnout race. And that is one of the major dynamics that helps entrench these interest groups so firmly in New York's political economy. I want to stay on this point about the public polling data for a little bit longer. Something that I think about, at Tangle, you know, we read about national politics.

We covered national political issues. Something that we found interesting is that there are several issues where when they're pulled generally, there does appear to be a very strong consensus about one side or the other. Things like gun control, you'll see close to supermajorities. on very broadly phrased questions about the need for some kind of a background check, something in that vein. But then when actual proposals are put, say, in a ballot initiative or are proposed by legislation, you actually see the support come down considerably once people actually have

something tangible to respond to. The reason I bring this up is that in 2024, we saw several measures to reform election systems and states fail, despite, I think, both in New York and more broad, broadly, there has been polling that shows support for these, you know, in general or in the abstract. So I wonder, do you think about that at all when you're looking at this polling data and saying, well, maybe the public push for this just isn't strong enough yet? There actually isn't like the necessary level of public support for this that could overcome some of the roadblocks that exist right now. Yeah, so there's a lot there.

And I think the general trend is directionally right, that voters, do support different electoral structures. They, for example, want to see more open and nonpartisan primaries. They want to have a third party as a viable option. But when the rubber meets the road, many of these efforts fail at the ballot box. So, as you say, last year we had seven states that were proposing rank choice voting in various configurations. and all the statewide measures to introduce RCV failed. Alaska narrowly retained its final four system of RCV plus all candidate primaries,

but only after the pro-R-CV camp spent 100 to 1 compared to the repealers. So it was a very hard one victory, and it was by no means a slam dunk. You saw purple and blue states also shoot down some of these ballot measures, states like Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado. And, you know, these entrenched interests often mobilize when these ballot measures are put on because they know that's their last line in the sand. And they can mobilize against these efforts. And these entrenched interests persist. They're always there. And reformers, they come and they go, right?

It's more of an ephemeral kind of phenomenon. So getting a reform passed is one thing. Keeping it durable is a totally different matter. And you're seeing that play out in Alaska. So whether or not the state will retain its final four system remains to be seen in the long run, but for now, it remains in place after that close victory. We'll be right back after this quick commercial break. Fuming back into New York City,

when you think about reformers' very tangible next steps, not thinking about the end goal, but necessarily, you know, what they need to do right now. What comes to mind? What are you most focused on? What are you most interested in? Well, what I was disheartened by recently was the Charter Revision Commission had considered putting primary reform on the ballot for November. That would have changed the New York City Charter to eliminate closed partisan primaries in favor of all candidate primary, that still used rank choice voting to select the top two vote getters in this party, in this nonpartisan primary, open to all candidates and open to all voters,

and the top two from that would have gone on to a general election, runoff style in November. The reason we did not ultimately get that on the ballot was, I believe, in large part, the far-left interest groups in New York City mobilized after Zoran Mamdani's primary win, and they politicized the proposal as something that would prevent a Mamdani-style victory from happening again in the future, that it was an attempt to thwart further far-left efforts at the mayoralty. Of course, that ignores the fact that the Charter Revision Commission was working throughout the entire year on proposals that it had heard from innumerable New Yorkers on their frustration in not being able to vote if they were an unaffiliated voter. And that, to me, is quite dispiriting because it's not every year that New Yorkers have a meaningful chance at reforming the party primary structure. And if you look at the results of the mayoral election, you can see that electoral reform really is needed here.

So for, I don't want to take away anything from Zeran Mamdani's win. It was a very well-run campaign. It was a historic victory. But if you look at the underlying numbers, he won 11% of the total registered voting base. So it's really just a sliver of a sliver. 11% of your total registered voters does not necessarily indicate a mandate for socialism. We will see how this plays out in the general election, which is indeed open to all voters, but of course that is not a ranked choice election and therefore is susceptible to spoiler effects.

It's interesting to hear you describe that dynamic because in my mind, I view somebody like Andrew Cuomo, as maybe represented of this. Hey everybody, this is John, executive producer for Tangle. We hope you enjoyed this preview of our latest episode. If you are not currently

a newsletter subscriber or a premium podcast subscriber and you are enjoying this content and would like to finish it, you can go to readtangle.com and sign up for a newsletter subscription or you can sign up for a podcast subscription or a bundled subscription.

which gets you both the podcast and the newsletter and unlocks the rest of this episode, as well as ad-free daily podcasts, more Friday editions, Sunday editions, bonus content, interviews, and so much more. Most importantly, we just want to say thank you so much for your support. We're working hard to bring you much more content and more offering, so stay tuned. For the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Law.

Today's episode was edited and engineered by John Law. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editors Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saul, Lindsay Canuth. Music for the podcast was produced by John Law. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at readtangle.com. I'm going to Well,