> That's pretty hard to infer given the context, since the MTA is controlled by both the city and the state.
Not really - the MTA is a private entity which receives the bulk of its funding from the state, and the state government is (ostensibly) responsible for holding it accountable.
> This is also true of say, Georgia. You can see for example that no one even ran against Buddy Carter in 2016 [1]. Most districts, period, aren't really that competitive.
New York is a special case in the degree to which both parties collude to keep districts non-competitive for general elections, how they ensure that even primary elections are non-competitive[0], and the number of state laws that they have passed in order to shield this power from being checked by voters at any step.
I don't really want to get too into the details here, because it's tangential to the original topic, but it's been discussed on HN before.
[0] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/nyregion/new-york-poli...
Not really - the MTA is a private entity which receives the bulk of its funding from the state, and the state government is (ostensibly) responsible for holding it accountable.
> This is also true of say, Georgia. You can see for example that no one even ran against Buddy Carter in 2016 [1]. Most districts, period, aren't really that competitive.
New York is a special case in the degree to which both parties collude to keep districts non-competitive for general elections, how they ensure that even primary elections are non-competitive[0], and the number of state laws that they have passed in order to shield this power from being checked by voters at any step.
I don't really want to get too into the details here, because it's tangential to the original topic, but it's been discussed on HN before.
[0] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/nyregion/new-york-poli...