If Michael Bloomberg wants to spend $1 billion to become the latest in a series of political spoilers and deny the next president, whoever that may be, a real mandate, he has every right to do so under the law. The result would be yet another controversial election that would hardly serve to “bring us together.” Though many European countries require run-off elections when no one candidate gains a majority in order to provide for a mandate to govern, our system, in which the electoral votes remain paramount, does not allow for that.
Bloomberg is currently a very popular mayor. Crime has continued to go down while New York has made significant strides in education. In addition, he has devised major long-range plans intended to improve the city’s appearance and quality of life. By comparison, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s first year in office has been marked more by scandal than concrete accomplishments, and his approval rating last month stood at a mere 36 percent whereas Bloomberg’s has been running at a substantial 70 percent or better.
While Bloomberg is seen as an effective problem solver in New York City, the problems of New York State just won’t go away. Longtime residents have been fleeing the state for decades, while many upstate cities and towns are so characterized by boarded-up stores and other defunct places of business that they look worse than at the height of the Great Depression.
As governor of New York, Bloomberg would be in a strong position to help assure that his long-term plans for the city come to fruition. If he truly is looking for a new and greater challenge for his administrative talents, he would do well to look no farther than Albany.
