So, an update on something I said earlier this year about the 2026 New York gubernatorial election.
I previously said I was planning on voting for Larry Sharpe.
Well… looks like that isn’t happening anymore.
Larry Sharpe is out of the race. His independent nominating petition was ruled invalid because New York requires 45,000 signatures for an independent statewide candidate, while the petition filed for Sharpe and his running mate contained a maximum of 1,615 signatures.
And because of that, I’ve had to reconsider who I’m voting for.
And I’ve decided that I’m voting for Jonathan Makeley, the Prohibition Party candidate.
Yes. The Prohibition Party.
Before anybody goes, “WAIT, THE PROHIBITION PARTY?!”
Yes. Let me explain.
Jonathan Makeley is a historian, a lifelong New Yorker, and the chair of the Prohibition Party of New York. He’s running for governor as a write-in candidate because of New York’s ballot-access requirements. The Prohibition Party itself describes him as its first candidate for New York governor since 1926.
And while I certainly don’t agree with everything Makeley or the Prohibition Party believes, there is actually quite a bit in their platform that I agree with.
In fact, let’s go through it.
The Prohibition Party’s number-one issue is obviously alcohol, tobacco, and recreational drugs.
And this is probably the area where I agree with them the most strongly.
I agree with the idea that alcohol, tobacco, and recreational drugs should be treated as serious public-health and societal issues rather than simply as products for corporations to sell. The party supports stronger restrictions on advertising and commercial promotion of these substances, higher alcohol taxes, treatment, prevention, and other public-health measures.
And this issue is personal for me.
I lost my friend Connor to drugs.
So when I look at somebody running for governor who is willing to make drug policy and the consequences of drug abuse a major part of his campaign, that means something to me.
And look, I am not pretending that government can magically make drugs disappear. I’m not pretending that every person who uses drugs is some horrible person. Addiction is complicated. People are complicated.
But I do believe we need to take the consequences seriously.
And even though the person responsible for selling the drugs that ultimately killed my friend was eventually put away, I still can’t help thinking about the larger system and thinking: how did we let this happen in the first place?
Because getting the dealer after somebody dies is not the same thing as preventing somebody from dying.
That is why Makeley’s emphasis on drugs and public health resonates with me on a very personal level.
But I don’t want to pretend I agree with the entire Prohibition Party platform.
I absolutely do not.
Take abortion.
I strongly disagree with the Prohibition Party’s overall position on abortion and its broader “right to life” framework.
However, there are things within that section that I do agree with.
I support expanded health care for pregnant women. I support counseling. I support adoption services. I support helping mothers who are dealing with difficult circumstances.
And I agree with the party’s opposition to the death penalty.
So, yes, I can agree with some of the things in a particular section while strongly disagreeing with the overall position.
That’s kind of the point.
I’m not joining a political party because I agree with every single sentence in its platform.
I also agree with the Prohibition Party on health care. I agree with making health care accessible and supporting programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
I agree with its education policies, including supporting public schools, vocational education, community college, higher education, and worker retraining.
I agree with much of its economic platform, particularly investing in infrastructure and public services and making corporations contribute their fair share.
I agree with its labor positions, including workers’ rights to organize, living-wage policies, and reasonable family leave.
I agree with its environmental and agricultural policies, including sustainable agriculture, regenerative farming, renewable energy, and reducing environmental damage.
I agree with its emphasis on government ethics, transparency, anti-corruption laws, and keeping scientific and regulatory agencies from being improperly influenced.
I agree with its support for voting rights and greater opportunities for alternative parties and independent candidates.
And that last one is especially relevant here because Makeley himself is running as a write-in candidate while arguing that New York’s ballot-access laws make it unnecessarily difficult for alternative candidates to get on the ballot. His campaign specifically calls for repealing restrictive ballot-access changes and expanding opportunities for independent and minor-party candidates.
I also agree with the party’s general opposition to discrimination and its support for equality and equal opportunity.
And I agree with its general immigration framework.
But there is another major area where I strongly disagree with the Prohibition Party.
The military.
I am not pro-military.
That doesn’t mean I don’t support military personnel or military families. Of course I support making sure people who serve and their families are taken care of.
But supporting people who are in the military is not the same thing as believing that America should continually maintain such a massive military establishment or place military power at the center of its foreign policy.
I believe we should gradually move away from being so heavily militarized and put much more emphasis on diplomacy, international cooperation, humanitarian efforts, and preventing conflicts from happening in the first place.
So that’s another major disagreement I have with the Prohibition Party.
And that’s okay.
Because I don’t expect to find a political candidate whose platform is a perfect 100% match for me.
What I care about is whether there are enough things that matter to me that I can look at the candidate and say, yeah, I actually want to put my vote behind this person.
And that’s where Jonathan Makeley comes in for me.
Makeley isn’t some random person who appeared out of nowhere in 2026. He’s been involved with the Prohibition Party for years, including serving as chair of the New York Prohibition Party and secretary of the national party. He’s also a historian whose academic work focuses on American reform movements.
And his campaign isn’t only about alcohol.
His New York platform talks about public health, drug policy, government ethics, ballot access, infrastructure, education, environmental issues, criminal justice, and other issues affecting New Yorkers.
That’s why I don’t see my vote for him as simply saying, “I like Prohibition.”
It’s saying that there is a particular set of issues where I feel his campaign speaks to things that matter to me.
Especially drugs.
Especially because of Connor.
And now that Larry Sharpe isn’t going to be on the ballot, Makeley is the candidate I have decided to support.
I’m also not going to pretend that voting for a third-party write-in candidate is the same thing as voting for somebody who has a major-party ballot line.
It’s not.
Makeley is a write-in candidate. His name isn’t printed on the normal ballot line the way the major-party candidates’ names are.
But I don’t consider that a reason not to vote for him.
To me, voting is not only about trying to pick somebody who is going to win.
Sometimes I vote because I want to express what I actually believe.
Sometimes I vote because I want to support an issue.
Sometimes I vote because I want to support a candidate who is talking about something that matters deeply to me.
And sometimes I vote because I want to send a message.
That’s what this vote is going to be for me.
I know that New York’s political environment means major-party candidates dominate statewide elections. But I don’t want to turn my vote into nothing more than a calculation of who I think has the biggest political machine.
I want my vote to actually mean something to me.
And for me, in 2026, that means writing in Jonathan Makeley.
Is he perfect?
No.
Do I agree with everything he or the Prohibition Party believes?
Absolutely not.
But I don’t need to.
I can strongly agree with him on drugs, alcohol, tobacco, public health, government reform, education, environmental issues, labor, voting access, and a bunch of other things while strongly disagreeing with him on abortion and the military.
That’s politics.
And that’s why, after Larry Sharpe’s exit from the race, I’ve changed my plan.
In November, I’m voting for Jonathan Makeley.
Not because I agree with everything.
Not because I’m pretending he’s some perfect candidate.
But because, after looking at what he actually stands for, this is the candidate whose campaign I want my vote to represent.
And to me, that’s not a wasted vote.
It’s my vote.
And I’m going to use it to say what I actually believe.
Jonathan Makeley, 2026.