We’re nearing the end of Governor Deval Patrick’s first legislative year. The General Court’s long vacation begins on November 21, and most of the decisions have already been made. Let’s check the score.

During the election last fall, I doubted that Patrick could corral the legislature. The early returns certainly seemed to confirm my fears. The picture hasn’t improved. Very few of Patrick’s proposals have moved forward. This article quotes Patrick’s frustrations, and outlines several of his proposals that haven’t moved forward. Biotech, closing corporate loopholes, and his education plan are all immobile. The barest minimums of pension and health plan changes made it through. Casinos are up next and not moving quickly.

Truth be told, I’m glad some of those proposals have stalled. I’m not a fan of government investment in private industry. But still, we’re about to finish our first year of one-party rule. The Democrats control every statewide office and 88% of the legislature. What do they have to show for it? A budget? Anything else?

The budget is worth a paragraph all by itself. Did you know that the legislature overrode several of Patrick’s line item vetoes, spending tens of millions? Under Romney, veto overrides were routine with the lopsided Democrat majority. This year, Patrick’s vetoes got the same treatment, sometimes with Patrick getting only Republican support for his veto. I didn’t see this reported in any mainstream press stories, but you can read about it in the Beacon Hill Roll call. Check your September 27th Advocate, or any other paper that carries the Roll Call. Line items for Adult Day Care Health, Fire Services (Boston), and Workforce Development Program were all overridden this summer.

Next year is a presidential election, so the state issues are likely to be overshadowed. But three years from now, during the next state office cycle, what are we going to be talking about? Will Patrick and the legislature make peace? Will they run against each other? Will it have been three more years of no progress, painted over with smiles and party unity? Or will there actually be a list of accomplishments?

Here’s my answer. Patrick is thinking of modifying the police detail rules that cost tax payers and rate payers, but pay police officers. It’s not a big money issue, but it’s a big political issue. If he makes this change it’s a sign that the rules have changed. If the policy stays untouched, it will be a clear sign of business as usual.

I’ve often written about the effects of single-party politics in Massachusetts.

There’s a bill on Beacon Hill that would help remedy the problem. The idea is that when faced with a ballot with no good choices, you’d have the option of voting for “none of the above. If enough people choose it, a new election is held. It’s certainly an option that I would have taken in November (I even used the “none of the above” phrase!)

I think some people are hung up about what to do if “NOTA” wins the race. I think it’s a bit of a red herring. “None of the above” won’t be at the top of the ballot, but it will be a message. Candidates with high NOTA numbers will be more vulnerable in future elections and opposition campaigns will be able to demonstrate support before they even run. NOTA will make primaries more competitive, and maybe even encourage a few entrants from other parties for the general election.

While I like the idea, I predict that it won’t make it into law. The representatives in office now were elected by the current system. That succeed in the system. They have built their political machines and, history tells us, those machines will keep them in office as long as they want. These aren’t people interested in change. They’re interested in the status quo.

This reform, like so many others, is destined for defeat.

When I was running for state rep in ’04, one of my “stump speech” issues was auto insurance. I talked about how the law permitted the insurance commissioner to annually make a formal declaration that competition for insurance in Massachusetts was impossible, and then fulfill the prophecy by imposing price controls. I talked about how it resulted in higher insurance prices for most car owners. I also talked about how the state was forcing good drivers to subsidize bad ones, how people making riskier choices were being subsidized by people making safer choices.

I am, of course, delighted that Governor Deval Patrick’s appointee, Nonnie Burnes, has decided to open the door to competition (well, at least crack the door open).

The usual set of naysayers are starting up their chorus. Check out this Globe editorial, and then do some of the math with me. The Globe cites a MassPIRG statistic that one million drivers will be left without choices in the new system. It notes that there are four million autos in Massachusetts. By my math, that’s claiming that 25% of drivers will be in this high-price, no-choice deadend. The editorial also relays Burnes’s statement that 80% of Massachusetts drivers subsidize the 20% riskiest drivers. Which means that . . . there are some people who are currently subsidizing other drivers, paying above market rates, that won’t find an insurer in the new system? That doesn’t pass the smell test. Everyone who gets to stop subsidizing bad drivers will enjoy rates that fall even faster than they are now.

MassPIRG, and by association the Globe, is engaged in some classic fearmongering. I notice that most of the people who will see higher rates live in cities. I also note that MassPIRG is a strong advocate of using public transportation. Do you think MassPIRG has considered that if the cost of driving a car in the city goes up, that more people will use public transportation?

One last thought: When Mitt Romney was governor, he got to appoint his own insurance commissioner. I’d really like to hear him try to explain why he couldn’t have made this change. And then I’d look at the list of his contributors for people in the insurance industry.

Here’s hoping that the changes stick. Let’s put the costs where they belong.