Welcome to the Pirate Wires voting guide. Our philosophy: policy should simply be sane.

We don’t vote for antisocial lunatics. We don’t vote for any kind of funding that lacks a clear goal or, most importantly, a plan to achieve that goal. We are interested in pro-order pro-business pro-growth candidates who value the productive, law-abiding men and women of their city over the literal drug dealers and deranged lunatics on the subway. We stand for beauty. We stand for opportunity. We stand for protecting that which is good, for eradicating that which is evil, and for a general flourishing. But really, because the bar is so unbelievably low in NYC, we stand for people who aren’t insane.

New York is in a tough spot. The city is unfortunately full of both leeches and extremely dedicated socialists with an A+ local politics ground game, which they’ve been at for decades. Slowly, the Democratic Party has been seized by genuine radicals, and in a de facto One Party State that means your city is presently — and there’s no other way to put this, unfortunately — fucked. Come election day, sane people will be at an insurmountable disadvantage. Literally. There is no path for you to wake up on November 5th happy, I am sorry to say. But we can eke out a few small victories, and hopefully this election will wake the wealthiest and most dedicated of the sane New Yorkers up, and they can set to building the kind of political machinery the far left has used to totally dominate local politics across the country. It is hard, boring work. And there is no other way.

But! As they say: the best time to plant a tree was ten years ago. The second-best time is today.

New York City is the de facto capital of our nation. It should be our towering North Star. This is the goal. And these are our endorsements for human civilization.

Quick detail on the mechanics of this guide: first, we provide a cheat sheet with each of our selections for easy cribbing in your polling booth. Then, below the cheat sheet, I’ve provided a bit more context if you’re curious about our thinking. On ballot props specifically, the Manhattan Institute helped us quite a bit with research. I reviewed it all myself, conducted my own, and part ways with them on one of the props. I’ll explain all that thinking in the notes below, along with notes on a handful of races for City Council.

Now, let’s get down to business.

CHEAT SHEET

PDF here for you and the homies.

Mayor

Andrew Cuomo

Public Advocate

None

Comptroller

Mark Levine

Manhattan District Attorney

Maud Maron

Borough Presidents

Bronx

None

Brooklyn

None

Manhattan

None

Queens

None

Staten Island

Vito Fossella

City Council Elections

District 1

Helen Qiu

District 2

None

District 3

None

(see notes)

District 4

Virginia Maloney

(see notes)

District 5

Julie Menin

District 6

None

District 7

None

District 8

None

District 9

None

District 11

None

District 12

None

District 13

Kristy Marmorato

District 14

None

District 15

None

District 16

None

District 17

None

District 18

None

District 19

Vickie Paladino

(see notes)

District 20

None

(see notes)

District 21

None

District 22

None

District 23

Linda Lee

District 24

James F. Gennaro

District 25

None

District 26

None

District 27

None

District 28

None

District 29

Lynn Schulman

District 30

Alicia Vaichunas or Phil Wong

(see notes)

District 31

None

District 32

Joann Ariola

District 33

None

District 34

None

District 35

None

District 36

None

District 37

None

District 38

None

District 39

None

District 40

None

District 41

None

District 42

None

District 43

Susan Zhuang

District 44

Simcha Felder

District 45

None

District 46

Athena Clarke

(see notes)

District 47

George Sarantopoulos

District 48

Inna Vernikov

District 49

Kamillah Hanks

(see notes)

District 50

David Carr

District 51

Frank Morano

Ballot Proposals

As mentioned above, I worked on these with the Manhattan Institute (MI), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that takes no position on candidates or political parties. But they, and especially John Ketcham, did help us out with research into the ballot props. We generally agree, though I part ways with them on Prop 2. Below, I’ll share their thinking and why I netted out a little differently.

Ballot Proposal 1

Yes

Ballot Proposal 2

No

Ballot Proposal 3

Yes

Ballot Proposal 4

Yes

Ballot Proposal 5

Yes

Ballot Proposal 6

Yes

NOTES

Mayor

Ah yes, the main event — and who will it be? The disgraced former “I’m not a pervert, I’m just Italian” governor of New York City responsible for some of the worst Covid policies in the country, the quirky NIMBYish Republican in his whimsical red fedora, or the literal “defund the police” Marxist who wants to abolish early-age gifted and talented programs, raise taxes explicitly so deranged lunatics presently assaulting bus drivers can finally ride for free, and, if his affiliation with the DSA is to be taken seriously (I don’t know why it isn’t, I don’t know why people keep expecting me to not care about this???) “dismantling and moving beyond” capitalism.

Okay.

I don’t think I need to spend much more time on Zohran. The average Pirate Wires reader has been picking up what we’ve been putting down for months: the little gerbil is calling for $70 billion in additional funding (no idea where it’s coming from (jk it’s coming from you)) to build 200,000 new low-income housing units; he’s “freezing the rent” in the name of lowering the cost of rent, which will of course only further constrain supply (yay abundance); he’s spending $6 billion on “free” universal childcare, which will be staffed by workers paid wages at parity with public school teachers; he’s called for reducing the police budget by $1.1 billion and establishing an Orwellian “Department of Community Safety,” which will support “gun violence interrupters” and send unarmed non-police-responders to mental health 911 calls; he has supported literal prison abolition, and supports closing Rikers Island (a position he just reaffirmed); and he’s ceding control over NYC public schools, likely to dozens of new districts, where, as we have seen in San Francisco, lunatics have a far better shot at winning elections and imposing their truly psychotic worldview on largely defenseless middle-income citizens.

Meanwhile, there’s Cuomo: the Italian Stallion (with a nipple ring, I’m sorry but I’m never letting it go) supports rezoning for greater density, including in industrial business zones, and supports bringing tens of thousands of rent stabilized units back on the market; he has a decent history of big new infrastructure projects (the beautiful new Moynihan Train Hall, the new Tappan Zee Bridge, and (FINALLY) a lil piece of the Second Avenue Subway); he oversaw the rebuilding of LaGuardia, which truly slaps I have to say; wants to hire 5,000 new NYPD officers; wants to double the number of specialized high schools in NYC for accelerated learners (we seriously love this shit), and wants to expand gifted and talented programs; he has a history of squaring off against the teachers’ union; and isn’t a literal communist. And while he at least opposes the closing of Rikers (why the hell are we even discussing this), he does have a history of pro-crime policies, including severely restricting the use of cash bail and remand, dramatically increasing prosecutors’ compliance burden to produce evidence at discovery, and raising the age of criminal culpability to 18. He says he takes a lot of this back now or something? Idk.

Then, finally, there’s Curtis Sliwa. Oh, sweet, sweet Curtis who once had 17 cats. Our Guardian Angel in a red beret who squared off against the looters back in 2020 when the rest of the world sort of just gave up (we genuinely thank the Guardian Angels for their service): our boy supports the same unlock of tens of thousands of rent-stabilized housing units as Cuomo, but is also overall a bit of a NIMBY, opposing “developer-driven overdevelopment that strains schools, transit, and public services,” and opposes City of Yes (basically, rezoning in favor of building shit), with fundamentally a position in favor of community input bureaucracy of the very sort that cripples almost every city in the country from building; he loves the subway, but has no meaningful experience building anything, nor a workable plan to expand the subway?; wants to hire 7,000 more police officers, expand the NYPD’s gang unit, and repeal the city’s late-2010s criminal justice reforms; he would expand gifted and talented programs in the city, eliminate the charter school cap; and is also not a literal communist.

The calls for Sliwa to drop annoy me. Why should we support the calls from “reasonable centrists” for the only Republican in the race to step down in order to give Cuomo, a Democrat, a better chance at beating the other Democrat he failed to handle in the primary? This is a wild expectation of an actual different political party, and a crazy precedent to set, which fully incentivizes behavior like this from Democrats for years to come. But on paper, Sliwa’s NIMBY shit is really not good, I genuinely don’t think he has the experience to successfully run a city like New York as anything other than a fun and whacky kind of figurehead, and I genuinely hate Zohran. So it is what it is. Cuomo has the best chance of beating the lunatic, would honestly probably be a good mayor, and so we are unfortunately forced to support him.

Hold your nose and vote for Andrew. And then enjoy your new communist mayor (there’s no way Zohran’s not losing this thing if Sliwa doesn’t drop, and if Sliwa does drop Zohran will still almost certainly win).

Public Advocate

Jumaane Williams is an idiot affiliated with the DSA with no shot at losing this race, but most importantly: this race shouldn’t exist, because this position shouldn’t exist. The city’s “public advocate” serves no real purpose, and really just exists as a platform for lunatic activists to spew nonsense on the taxpayer’s dollar.

So, to reiterate, no endorsement here, and also this position is bad, and should feel bad. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Comptroller

Mark Levine is the least crazy alternative who also has a chance of winning. Peter Kefalas has no shot, and Mamdani supported Justin Brannan who Levine defeated in the primary. While Levine does support the dumb policy of using pension funds to invest in affordable housing, most of his other positions are relatively sane. And hopefully one sane person in office will have a normalizing effect on your new communist mayor.

(it won’t (sorry, this is as good as you get when you don’t run good people))

Manhattan District Attorney

LFG Maud! Maud Maron! OUR QUEEN!

Crime has exploded under Alvin Bragg, which means we don’t even need to touch his self-important vendetta against Donald Trump, which only ever served to fuel Trump’s chances of winning the last election — which is to say Bragg is not only a bad person, but a stupid person.

New York City’s serious crime index is now higher by like 16% boroughwide since 2021 (about 9% in Manhattan North, 23% in Manhattan South). Felony assaults are at levels not seen since the late 1990s. Bragg has still not disavowed his infamous Day 1 Memo, in which he promised not to prosecute misdemeanors unless charged along with a felony. This is the reason police have simply stopped going after most crime in the city. Shoplifting has, as one would expect, increased.

Maud Maron, on the other hand, is vowing to actually prosecute. This is one the most important races in the election. Vote for this woman.

Borough Presidents

We’re only recommending one, since the rest suck ass. But important to note this is another useless position that should probably not exist. If Prop 4 passes, it will have more power. Anyway:

Staten Island

I disagree with Vito Fossella on congestion pricing (I’m in favor), but I kind of understand his position coming from Staten Island, which is much more car dependent. And that’s really the theme for this guy: he cares about Staten Island, feels Staten Island lacks adequate representation in the city, and will pretty much just support things that make sense for Staten Island, which is earnestly his goal. I think that’s a fine goal for Staten Island president? If I were living in Staten Island, this would be my guy.

City Council Elections

This is where things really fall apart in NYC, and there just isn’t a lot of good news. Note on our endorsements here, I prioritize public safety over almost everything else, then transportation, education, and housing. Housing is a complex issue in the city because everyone supports lowering the cost of housing, but there are many conservative NIMBYs who simply want nothing new built, and many (maybe most?) left wingers who only care about housing policy insofar as it leads to free one bedroom apartments for convicts, drug addicts, and their friends, which naturally cuts against law and order policy. So we’re doing our best to juggle our core values in a city with no really slam dunk politicians.

For context on all the blanks, D2 is dominated by a Mamdani stooge. D6-9 is run by the far left (pro-crime, pro-free shit). D11-17 is run by the far left or union left, which is either pro-crime or totally soft on crime.

My goal was to identify candidates who shared our values. If there was nobody who both 1) seemed reasonable, or 2) at least had a slim shot at winning, we opted out of endorsement altogether. Get your act together, New York. Start encouraging great people to run, and give them money. Or this is what you’ll get forever.

District 3

I just don’t think Erik Bottcher is strong enough on crime. But he’s a nice seeming kinda guy who wants affordable housing (defined in the more left-wing way) and to ban the city from buying… water bottles? I can’t endorse him, but I can see how a center-leftist might be fine with this one.

District 4

This is really a soft endorsement for me, and if you decided not to vote for Virginia Maloney I couldn’t blame you. Virginia is another “best option” who still kinda seems to suck. She talks a lot about public safety, but what she seems to mean by that is… addressing the danger of e-bikes? God, people like this annoy me. Your high-level problem is not e-bikes, Virginia.

She’s at least fine on infrastructure and modernizing city services. Your call.

District 19

Ben Chou wouldn’t be the end of the world, and Vickie Paladino is a bit of NIMBY. HOWEVER… Vickie has personally confronted squatters, which is just so unbelievably based we have no choice but to unconditionally stan. The Karen NYC needs, but probably not the Karen NYC deserves.

District 20

Some might lean toward Sandra Ung. She’s too much the NIMBY for me however, determined to maintain the “character” of Flushing — by which she means the version in which she grew up, certainly not the version before that! — and focuses too much on directing city resources toward the development of services specifically dedicated to immigrants. But she also hates litter and worked a bit on solar installation, which is kind of cool.

I don’t know, if you’re into it go for it I guess.

District 30

This is such a funny race. Both Alicia Vaichunas and Phil Wong worked for Bob Holden, a conservative Democrat and all around good guy who doesn’t want to endorse either candidate, because he loves them both. The candidates share most of his positions, and seem to also like each other? It’s honestly a coin toss, which is how Holden characterized the race. And a kind of rare heartwarming tale in local politics.

District 46

Bit of a loose cannon and super radicalized after Covid, which is a big part of her story, but seems good on crime. A soft and cautious endorsement.

District 49

Just a fun little bonus note on Kamillah: she established an inter-agency “squatter” task force. APPROVED.

Ballot Proposals

Ballot Proposal 1

A statewide amendment to the Adirondack Park / Mount Van Hoevenberg Olympic Sports Complex land deal: allowing continued use of the sports complex land and the acquisition of about 2,500 acres for the park

Yes.

This is the only statewide prop on the ballot this year.

Long story short, this facility was built a century ago, and heavily developed for the Olympics back in the 80s. But its existence is technically illegal given it’s on “forever wild” state forest. It’s nice, and people like it, and we should keep it IMO. Let’s just make it legal and do more cool shit there, which the public can enjoy.

Ballot Proposal 2

A charter amendment for NYC: to create a fast-track review process for certain affordable housing projects, so they can be approved more quickly.

No.

My read, this is going to greatly accelerate the construction of 100% affordable units across the city, with much less impact on market rate housing in a small number of neighborhoods, mostly without direct subway access. After this passes, I worry there will be no appetite to advance market rate housing as it navigates NYC’s regulatory maze. For most of the city, new developments under Prop 2 will be gifted to low-income families below 60% AMI (Area Median Income which means an increase in the population of net recipients the public will have to support, in free one bedroom apartments (minimum), forever. I am just totally opposed to this.

Did you know that New York City has a goal of setting aside a full 15% of new affordable units for the homeless? Why on earth are we doing this? Nobody is entitled to live for free in one of the most expensive, desirable cities in human history. And this is to say nothing of the impact such a policy will have on the community. Zohran Mamdani believes in policies that make life easier for violent criminals, which is how he recently defended his policy in favor of free buses (he says, explicitly: criminals are currently attacking bus drivers because they don’t want to pay, therefore making the ride free will end the attacks). I am not interested in policy that improves the lives of violent drug addicts at the expense of decent, productive members of society attempting to live their life in peace or raise a family in a city that increasingly makes that impossible. BY CHOICE. I’m sorry, no. No more. I’m over it.

I believe this is basically the high-level problem facing every single city in our country: policy that actually imports net recipients and even dangerous vagrants at the expense of everyone else. This traps the net recipients in place, and gradually raises — permanently — the cost to operate the city, while doing nothing to ease the cost of housing for anyone else.

The Manhattan Institute seems to think some decent projects will work through the system buried within what is, to my eye, poison. And while I think a compromise of this kind is sometimes necessary (see Prop 4 below), I just do not agree.

John Ketcham: MI agrees that the vast majority of new housing should be financed and built by the private sector — New York City can never meet its supply needs without private investment. Elected leaders should strive to make more projects pencil out, reduce uncertainty, and let the market work its magic.

But the practical reality is that NYC government has long built “100% affordable” housing, mostly through the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. Congress created LIHTC in 1986 to attract more private capital for affordable developments. It’s far from perfect, but it isn’t going anywhere. LIHTC has been expanded repeatedly with bipartisan support, most recently this year under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Trump. Every big U.S. city does some LIHTC-backed construction. These developments take years to rezone and build, however, adding to the city’s supply crunch.

Ballot Proposal 2 is designed to speed up approvals for these projects, letting them move forward in neighborhoods with good access to jobs, stores, and health care — the kinds of places where families can build better lives. Ballot Proposal 2 doesn’t create new subsidies. Instead, it makes more efficient use of existing public funds by enabling developments to be built more quickly — and therefore at lower cost — by speeding up the approval process and removing the councilmember’s veto that kills rezonings.

Ballot Proposal 3

A charter amendment for NYC: to simplify and shorten the review process (via an “Expedited Land Use Review Procedure”) for modest housing and infrastructure projects.

Yes.

Wonkish process simplification. Approved.

Ballot Proposal 4

A charter amendment for NYC: to establish an “Affordable Housing Appeals Board” which could override (with a two-to-one vote) the City Council’s decision when the Council rejects or changes an affordable housing application.

Yes.

This is still complicated, but an easier “yes” to swallow than a “yes” for Prop 2. This proposition would create a special board composed of the City Council Speaker, the Mayor, and whichever Borough President is relevant (depending on the neighborhood of a proposed development). The special board would then be capable of rejecting City Council decisions on housing projects with some number of affordable units set aside. This increases the power of the mayor, and we’ll see if Zohran can be trusted on his housing rhetoric (the abundance libs are saying yes! We! Can! (do communism and sane housing policy)). We’ll see. But Zohran won’t be mayor forever, which means this new board will eventually be helpful regardless.

If Prop 4 passes, three people will basically determine what housing is allowed to exist rather than 51 NYC City Councillors. Limiting the number of people responsible for a decision is always a boon to accountability. There will be no more hiding. Everyone in NYC will know who specifically is to blame for the sky-high cost of living, and who to remove from power.

Ballot Proposal 5

A charter amendment for NYC: to require the creation and maintenance of a digital city map by the Department of City Planning, modernizing how the city’s official map is kept and used.

Yes.

Extremely wonkish lil policy change that will consolidate and digitize maps, and make changes easier. Cute. Why not. Approved.

Ballot Proposal 6

A charter amendment for NYC: to authorize shifting the city’s local election year (for city offices) so they align with the U.S. presidential election year (moving from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years).

I don’t really care about voter turnout, as I don’t really think the average voter who can’t get their ass up on an odd year to vote is the kind of person we should cater to in elections. I also don’t think we want to further shape local elections with national political discourse, which running local races in a year Trump is on the ballot, for example, can’t help but accomplish. But consolidating elections will save the city some money, and I think it might — could possibly, we’ll see — help moderate elections somewhat, with the average “whatever” voter a little more averse to extremes.

San Francisco moved the mayor’s race to the general, and it was fine. My sense is special elections, or odd year elections, seem to cut in two directions: a great way for good men to revolt against their evil government, and a great way for socialists to seize your government.

Really, we are asking the question of “should we be biasing elections in favor of people who REALLY care about elections, or the average person who really doesn’t?” Maybe counterintuitively, I’m starting to think the latter group of people is just a less extreme kind of person in general. Let’s give it a shot?

Let’s give it a shot.

-SOLANA