|
The Peon Mayor
In the year 2028, the New York City charter was modified to fundamentally alter the nature of the mayoralty. While the election year was not modified--still once every 4 years, in the year immediately following a Presidential election--the benefits and duties of the office were radically changed. This was in response to decades of City Hall corruption and the mayor's office being captured repeatedly by billionaires, cretins, buffoons, and assorted jerks. The first such election would take place in 2033.
Rather than a traditional primary, candidates were drafted based on a set of criteria, with ten individuals chosen. The criteria included: - Total net worth -- Higher net worth increases one's odds of being drafted.
- Political donations -- High levels of political donations likewise increase one's chances.
- Public sentiment -- If polls are available regarding public sentiment, high levels of negative sentiment would increase one's chances.
- Criminal record -- Any criminal charges or convictions were weighed heavily; individuals with many repeat infractions such as parking tickets would stand out even more.
- General disposition -- Being characterized as rude, angry, aloof, corrupt, etc. increased one's chances significantly.
- Residency -- The individual must have been a resident of the State of New York for at least 2 years prior to the election year.
It was never difficult to fill out this list with 10 potentials. Once the 10 candidates were chosen, an open primary was held where voters ranked the candidates from most preferred to least preferred. This would whittle down the list to 2 candidates before late summer.
The remainder of the election season then left the two candidates to make their case to the public as to why they shouldn't be mayor. On Election Day, the voters of New York City chose the person they most wanted to punish by granting them the office of the mayor.
After the votes were counted, the mayor was chosen. Sometimes, it was very close! New Yorkers are nothing if not passionate people, with ire to spare.
The moment a new mayor was chosen, a series of automatic controls went into place. The mayor-elect's assets were immediately frozen. Any personal vehicles were seized. The mayor's residence was assigned as a random studio apartment in a neighborhood whose income levels were in the bottom quintile. The mayor-elect, of course, did not get to choose the accommodation.
The position was, in addition, not directly paid. Instead, the mayor's base salary was set as 1/3 of the median household income within the city limits, and paid monthly as a percentage of their approval rating. The mayor is not permitted to have any other income or source of funds or capital, though they were welcome to panhandle and ask people to buy them food--though only from food trucks.
A special Mayor's Card granted free access to all public transit methods, so it cannot be said that the position came with no perks at all, though they were perhaps less glamorous than past mayors were accustomed to.
One issue foreseen with this approach was that a duly elected mayor might refuse to discharge their duties, or even refuse to effectively take office. But such an individual would simply never have their assets unfrozen and returned, effectively forfeited to the city's coffers. Likewise, if the City Council unanimously determines that the mayor is derelict in their obligations, the mayor may be ejected from office with none of their assets returned. In such a case, the runner-up in the general election would assume the role, under precisely the same terms as the predecessor.
All of this resulted in mayors who were faced with public interaction much more frequently, and thus more direct public scrutiny. Early mayors struggled to come to grips with the strict requirements of the job. Indeed, individuals who were candidates but escaped election began making investments in the city to benefit the public, solely to avoid being drafted in the future. Many things were built or renovated: hospitals, libraries, schools, homeless shelters, houses and apartments, community centers... the list goes on. In the space of about 20 years, the city was revitalized and saw a far more equitable distribution of income--not least because the mayor benefited from it!
Other cities soon adopted this model, and while some individuals attempted to evade anti-corruption measures, city and state authorities were faced with immense public pressure to curtail it, lest they be subjected to similar measures. It turned out that making political office a sort of punishment, alleviated only by doing right by the public, was far more effective than voting in those who sought power only to watch them gradually corrupted by it.
This "poinocracy" was skeptically viewed at first, and saw a bumpy path to widespread use, but you couldn't argue with the results. Some jurisdictions put even harsher punishments in place to keep public office as unappealing as possible. Efforts to dial back these measures were often met with angry mobs who were willing to inflict vigilante justice on those who dared to tamper with the new system. It only took a few city councillors getting strung up before the powers that be got the point.
|
