This year's local election features the Republican and Democratic leadership colluding to endorse the same person for an elected position. What is the benefit of cross-endorsement? In Connecticut, when a person appears on more than one party line, the votes are added together to achieve a total. Most often, a minor party will cross-endorse a candidate on a Democrat or Republican line to give that candidate an advantage and put them over the top and hopefully will give the minor party some leverage with their issues. The Working Families Party uses this tactic quite often.
It has never been used, until recently, by the two major parties to block the election of a minor party candidate. The first selectman's race in the last local election ended with Mike Eldredge receiving 601 votes as a Republican and 330 votes as a Democrat and John Patton receiving 762 votes as a Sentinel. Under the rules, Eldredge was declared the winner with 931 votes. The strategy seemed to work so well last election that this year the party leadership decided to cross-endorse sixteen candidates in order to wipe out the A Sentinel Party. In talking to some of the Democrat/Republican candidates, they do not realize that they are being used as pawns by their leadership to stifle political competition. However, if they desired, they could withdraw on their own from the party they are not affiliated with and run a fair election on one line.
I have often heard that the political leadership is doing this "for the good of the Town". Could somebody get past the euphamism and give me a specific reason this cross-endorsement is "good for the Town?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
Given the players, no.
I honestly don't understand how the registered Democrats and Republicans stand for cross-endorsing. They are supposed to be 2 distinct parties with different idealogies. Now, we have Democrats and Republicans joined in one idealogy - defeat the Sentinal Party. It's a sad day for politics in Willington.
Or...perhaps the day is not so sad. The unification of seemingly different parties may be exactly what our system is designed for. We all remember "of the people, by the people.." Maybe, the Democrats and the Republicans have joined for the good of the town and the process. Cross-endorsement is allowed for good reason and has been used repeatedly in the past to show universal support for a good candidate. The A Sentinal Party has called it a perversion, and that the candidates are being secretly used as pawns. I beleive it's much much more legitamate than encouraging those who support the "minor party" to remain members of their previous party so as to have an insider. This also serves to water down the "major party" unity and the electoral process. It's deceptive and it gives us little credit as towns people.
Willington taxpayer asked the right question. Get past the canned phrases and explain how it is "good for the town and the process"? As far as being allowed, it is my understanding that cross-endorsement is illegal in 40 or so states. I am not a member of the Sentinal party but I think the cross-endorsement is being perverted.
'give me a specific reason this cross-endorsement is "good for the Town?" ' - OK, since you apparently are unable to think past the politics, here is how it benefits the town:
1. There are candidates running for re-election, regardless of party affiliation, that have done a good job. Cross-endorsement acknowledges that the experiece and efforts of those people has been, and will continue to be, in the town's best interest for those people to continue in thier positions.
2. This is a small town where the members of different parties do not necessarily have opposite and opposing viewpoints on every issue along strict party lines. The fact that both parties can agree before the election is a great indicator that the elected people can forget party politics and work together after the election.
I think it's great that politics in Willington has risen above the partisan bickering at the national level.
The euphemism "good for the town" is something that the voters seem able to understand quite readily. And they seem to be able to understand that a party with 44 registered members does not represent the majority of the town.
It appeared that 931 voters agreed with cross endorsement. In fact they so agreed with cross endorsement that John Blessington was the top vote getter. It would appear that the voters of Willington have expressed their opinion of "what is good for the town," in the voting booth.
So, the cross-endorsement is meant as a congratulations on a job well done. Were any of the Sentinal candidates cross-endorsed or were none of them doing a good job?
I don't thing the bickering has stopped. The only thing I ever read in the paper is how the Sentinal's are bad people. By your logic the Sentinal's were "good for the town" until the two parties cross-endorsed. Why can't the democrat and/or republican candidates just run on one line or another and just say nice things about each other?
There is a good reason why some Sentinel members keep their party membership. It allows them a voice in their national party on a state and national level!
... so when the Sentinal party treasurer forces a town primary, that is somehow voicing on the state and national level?
"There are candidates running for re-election, regardless of party affiliation, that have done a good job. Cross-endorsement acknowledges that the experiece and efforts of those people has been, and will continue to be, in the town's best interest for those people to continue in thier positions."
How can someone even say this?
This argument would carry some weight if the cross-endorsed candidates had previously held the position they are running for but more than 2/3 have not. Thus, any reasonable person would conclude that this could not possibly have been what led to the cross-endorsement.
Many of the cross-endorsed people are good people and I have no doubt in my mind that they can do a good job but the ends do not justify the methods.
The Sentinel Party has never run anyone for First Selectman other than John Patton aka willington taxpayer.
The Sentinel Party was formed for one purpose, so John Patton could run for First Selectman and pack the boards and committees with his friends and supporters. In politics these supporters are called hacks.
So what if the rest of the town is tired of John and his hack supporters. As long as Larry foots the bills, John could care less.
John does not care about Willington. John only cares about John.
to former sentinel,
I seeeeeeeee. So the cross-endorsement is to get rid of the Sentinel Party elected officials or "hacks". Sort of like "cleansing" the government.
I much prefer to have Republicans saying they endose Democratics and Democratics saying they endorse Republicans than having Sentinels claiming to be Republicans and trying to get on the ballot through a primary.
However you feel about endorsements they are just that-endorsements.
What the Sentinels tried to do with the Republican Party is simply dishonest.
I will vote for the honest person every time, even if I do not agree with their position.
At least I can trust them to be honest while in office.
The Primary Republicans were not dishonest about their motives in the election nor were they dishonest about their prior affiliation with the Sentinels. Furthermore, they were motivated primarily for their love of democracy and this town - not their devotion to John Patton.
I think they were brave to put themselves out there and shine a bright light on the issue at hand. I hope others will be inspired by their courage and get involved.
The honest people would not go into the back room under executive session to give the accountant an $8,000 raise then come out to an empty meeting room to vote!! The Sentinel voted against this process!! Your honest people voted to award a contract to the second highest bidder at $41,000 higher than the lowest qualified bidder!! My honest representative voted no.
Honest people honor contracts. Under the contract with town employees it is the decision of the employee as to having their employment status discussed in public or executive session. In this case executive session was chosen.
The room was empty only because members of the public chose to leave before the end of a public meeting. That is certainly their right.
Certainly townspeople should expect their elected officials to honor contract terms.
No, we were told to leave so the door could be locked!!! You are right about executive session but you should be able to be there when they come out. This was actually a case for FOI but we were nice about it.
"it is my understanding that cross-endorsement is illegal in 40 or so states". I've heard this quoted frequently so I did some research. Let's see your facts. It is amazing though, how often the "illegal in 40 states" argument is used though.
Let me see if I can make this simple enough.
People willing to work together is "good for the town". People ignoring political parties is "good for the process".
I don't think that anyone would argue with you that "People willing to work together is "good for the town"." Or that "People ignoring political parties is "good for the process"."
But can you guarantee that the people you hand-picked to be our elected officials will work together without an issue? And if they don't disagree on occassion, what good is it to have a committee in the first place? Where are the checks and balances? Where's the accountability? Can you explain how THAT is good for Willington?
As a candidate in this years election running on the ASP ticket, I find it very insulting to be labled a political hack. For the past two years I have served this town on the board of finance and have done so to the best of my ability for the good of the whole town, not just for the good of one person or family. I consider it a great honor to be able to forfill my civc duty in the town where I grew up. I find it very disturbing that there are people who label the A Sentinel Party as a party of only one man, when in fact it was formed by, and still today consists of citizens of Willington of all political backrounds who want to be well served by the people they elect. If ever there was a party of one man it would be today's Republican Town Committee, and that man is John Blessington, followed by a horde of cross-endorsing finger puppets.
I am not worried at all about cross endorsement. What I am worried about is my inability to understand the Zippy comic strip. Can anyone explain it to me?
Cross endorsement is very good for the town as it assures that we have a balanced government that is not completly dominated by one party. The idea is to get different points of view on issues as that generally yeilds the best results.
So what you are saying is that the Reps. did not want and the Dems. did not want Mike but they got Mike anyway! Did it work the same with Blessington?
You are not even in the ballpark.
If a minority party has a majority on most boards and commissions most of the people in town are being left out.
Notice the Democratics have 11 candidates and the Republicans have 8.
In the current election the Democrats hold only 1 position while the Sentinel Party holds 11. This is not difficult to figure out even for the "average Joe" such as myself.
Concerning the recent Republican Primary.
As this was a primary for Republicans will anyone please explain why John Patton, a Sentinel, stated in the newspaper that he feels the need for a restraining order.
The possibility of getting a restraining order is zero. It appears to me this is an attempt to indimidate voters.
maverick said that Mike Eldredge could not be bothered to help his community this weekend with town flooding. This is nothing short of a lie which I believe is intentional. If maverick bothered to look at what happened he would have found that:
The First Selectman was out of town for the weekend. He received a call from our public works director at 8 am in his hotel room concerning the flooding problems. He authorized public works to take all needed steps immediatly.
He drove to Willington and arrived at noon on Saturday. He consulted with all people concerned and spent the rest of the day with the town engineer going from place to place to have dangers evaluated. This included a dam in Stafford which appeared to be having problems.
He further asked to have the engineer evaluate all bridges and and other trouble spots as the water receded.
He felt the risk to our town warrented calling in outside contracts to assist in damage control. He consulted with the other two selectmen who agreed that the town should spend the money and hire the outside contractors. This was done and the contractors began work.
This took until Sunday afternoon.
mavrick should get his facts staight even though they are inconvient for his point of view.
Hey there anonymous--Mike was called at 4:00am and did not respond until 8:00! Get your facts straight--24/7 sleep was more important than getting his messages!Seems like he still had time later on to deliver his flyers!!!!
Anonymous said.. "If a minority party has a majority on most boards and commissions most of the people in town are being left out."
There's a lot wrong with this argument. First of all, if "most" of the people in town don't like it, then they could simply vote in a way that would not allow the minority party to have a majority. This would be perfectly acceptable to most Sentinels I know, although they would prefer that it be a FAIR election where Dems run as Dems, Repubs as Repubs and Sentinels as Sentinels.
The other problem with this argument is that you are forgetting that town government is not high school. You, as an individual, cannot be "left out." Of course there's the thing that everyone, regardless of personal situation or capabilities can do - vote. But aside from that, there's a lot more that "most" people are not doing.
There are a number of ways (regardless of your political affiliation) that you can ensure that you are not "left out."
If you are not involved, that is YOUR choice. If you do not volunter to service the community, that is YOUR choice. If you do not attempt to educate yourself on the way town government works, that is YOUR choice. If you don't like something and only complain about it, that is YOUR choice. If you don't ask questions or attend town meetings, that is YOUR choice.
Hey, it's also YOUR choice to believe that there's a big party going on at the Town Hall and you and your friends aren't invited. Nothing could be further from the truth though, and this blog is living proof of that.
maverick and sunflower
It is noticed that you both seem to use the same language. Is it possible that you work together.
Meanwhile you both seem to say that nothing was done. You have not shown that to be true.
Hope you can do better in the future.
boomerang finely has it right.
It is the responsibility of the townspeople to understand what is going on and vote accordingly.
Townspeople have the right to vote and will do so.
Anonymous said... "I think it's great that politics in Willington has risen above the partisan bickering at the national level."
Partisan bickering at the national level tends to be about national issues. I, for one, would like to see some partisan/opposing/differing - whatever you want to call it - viewpoints here on the local level.
Yes, this is a small town. Yes, of course we need to work together. But by definition, an "issue" is something to which there is no ONE answer. There are different viewpoints to consider. Depending on how you handle an "issue," some tax paying citizen in town will get marginalized, penalized, offended, etc.
In my mind, the answer is not to fill our boards with people who share the same "vision" and seem to get along. We should be filling our boards with people who know how to respectfully disagree and debate, who can happily consider an alternate viewpoint and who can rise above political and personal differences to do the right thing for the townspeople.
"respectfully disagree and debate, who can happily consider an alternate viewpoint and who can rise above political and personal differences to do the right thing for the townspeople" Read the BOS minutes, boomerang. Your Sents candidate does not endorse your view. However, I will agree that the other boards in town do not suffer from the same disfunction.
Where I come from (and yes, I do come from Willington) it takes two to tango. I know the BOS has trouble working together but I'm not naive enough to believe it's all one person's (or one party's) fault.
cross endorsement is a not an issue to me. vote for who you want to.
The whole issue of cross endorsement is a red herring.
Anonymous said...
"respectfully disagree and debate, who can happily consider an alternate viewpoint and who can rise above political and personal differences to do the right thing for the townspeople" Read the BOS minutes, boomerang.Your Sents candidate does not endorse your view. However, I will agree that the other boards in town do not suffer from the same disfunction.
I just read the recent BOS minutes and I don't get your point. Which meeting minutes should I have read?
If cross endorsing is such a non-issue, why is it being done? I have read all these posts and I still can't see how it is supposedly good for the town. I think it is a political ploy.
"If a minority party has a majority on most boards and commissions most of the people in town are being left out.
Notice the Democratics have 11 candidates and the Republicans have 8.
In the current election the Democrats hold only 1 position while the Sentinel Party holds 11. This is not difficult to figure out even for the "average Joe" such as myself."
The question you must ask yourself is "why is there only 1 elected democrat?"
I propose a challenge to the DEM-REPs, take the initiative to create a new party that represents your true intentions and face the sentinals on equal footing. Short of that, the DEM-REP cross endorsement is a political trick that will not be in the best interest of the town. The actions of DEM-REPs have proven they do not understand the complexity of town finances and management in the year 2005 (21st century)!
How do I get a Sentinel sign?
Many years ago Willington was a Democratic town. The people became tired of politics for power and along can The Sentinal Party. Here we go again with the two major parties in colusion with politics for power - again.
Lets have politics for the people - again !
If you would like a Sentinel sign, you can email me your name, address and phone number at signs@asentinelparty.com Thanks.
Thank you all for letting me know about the problem with the asentinelparty.com emails. The domain server for the Sentinel Party website is having intermittent problems with the emails. You can request a sign by emailing me directly at johnwpatton@msn.com. Thank you.
Revitalization of the Democratic Party is happening. As to unopposed candidates it is impossible to determine candidates from the Sentinel Party until they release their slate. As with this year they withheld their slate until September 12.
It might have had something to do with the Republican Primary, but they certainly had the right to withhold their slate. It is a benefit given to third parties by law.
As to if everbody was happy the party would leave the line blank.
That may work with just two parties, but not with three.
Under a two party system if one party leaves the line blank it means the same thing as endorsement for the candidate of the other party.
Under a three party system leaving the line blank would indicate that party showed no interest in who became elected.
Every party has the right to endorse any candidate of their choice. I do not understand why anyone would think it is proper to take that right away form them.
Much has been made about the people of Willington not having a choice.
We have two candidates for First Selectman. That is a choice of one out of two. The overwhelming majority of towns have two candidates running. Does that mean most of the State does not have choice?
Maybe with all the talk about choice someone would post how many times in Willington's history there have been more than two candidates to choose from for First Selectman on election day.
That would give us some insight to what is meant by "choice".
If, as has been said by A Sentinel Party, they are made up of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents devoted to a better Willington how does this differ from Democrats, Republicans, and Independants working together for a better Willington?
Seems to me A Sentinel Party is made up of people with different political idealogy getting together to "cross-endorse" a slate of candidates.
The whole basis of ASP is cross-endorsement.
Anonymous "The whole basis of ASP is cross-endorsement."
The whole basis of ASP is cooperation not cross-endorsement. Cooperation is working with people regardless of party line. A cross-endorsement is a gaming of our voting system which is based on party lines. The ASP has run Democrats, Republicans, unaffilates on the one line that is offered to them for a fair and open election. The cross-endorsement gives a candidate an advantage over any would be challendger to the point that no one challenges the selection of the party leadership. In other words, the balance that we hear about is balanced because the party leadership has its collective thumb on the scale.
We have a choice in this election because the candidates in the Sentinel Party decided that they would run despite the odds and give the voters a choice. Otherwise there would be no need for an election (except for a Planning and Zoning Candidate). Look back on the history of politics in Connecticut. How many times has someone lost that is cross-endorsed by the two major parties? Only once that I know of. Anybody that is intellectually honest will tell you that the odds are nearly insurmountable to beat a candidate that is cross-endorsed regardless of qualifications.
The ASP has worked cooperatively with people from all parties from the beginning. We have worked to move Willington into a positive direction resulting in these projects we are all so proud of like the Library, the Senior Housing/Senior Center and River Road Recreational Fields. The Town has a professional financial office working with the Town and Schools, a website for people to gather information about the happenings in their government and a financially sound Town. These things did not happen by magic and many of them were the result of a vision and dedication of many people.
There have also been times where we had to fight the major parties to achieve things like the purchase of land for the senior housing, locating a bus parking lot and creating a consolidated financial office.
The State of Connecticut and its Towns have a partisan election. It is just the way it is. It is designed with the parties providing competion and balance to present a choice for the electorate. Each parties base or faithful offsetting the other. The collusion between the leadership of the parties means the bases not only don't offset each other, they are added together. It was simply done to destroy the competition being provided by the Sentinel Party. In some people's minds, that maybe for "the good of the town."
I am making every effort to understand your position and fail.
When people from different political parties are endorsed by the Sentinel Party it is cooperation, which is good for Willington.
When people from different political parties are endorsed by Democrats or Republicans it is cross-endorsement, which is bad for Willington.
Seems to me it is all the same. Endorse people for office that will work for the best of Willington. All parties should be able to do that. I do make a distiction between local politics and State and Federal.
Anonymous said: "Under a two party system if one party leaves the line blank it means the same thing as endorsement for the candidate of the other party."
That's not true. It could also mean that they just didn't have a warm body to put up for that slot. That's what we face here in Willington.
Anonymous also said, "Under a three party system leaving the line blank would indicate that party showed no interest in who became elected."
That's not true either. It just means the same thing: they don't have a warm body to run.
Another thing Anonymous said was:
"Much has been made about the people of Willington not having a choice. We have two candidates for First Selectman. That is a choice of one out of two. The overwhelming majority of towns have two candidates running."
That may be true for the First Selectman spot, but what about the balance of the slate? What about the Sentinels running for BoE, Library, Region 19, etc. who don't have a chance?
And might I point out that if John Patton and Jack Lewis did not run, then there absolutely would not be a choice for First Selectman.
"If John Patton and Jack Lewis did not run, then there absolutely would not be a choice for First Selectman."
Mis-information - Only Patton is running for First Selectman. Lewis, Palmer and Blessington are running for Selectman. That's 3 choices.
This is (was) a most interesting train of dialogue. I am not a fan of cross-endorsement since the outome, in my opinion, becomes predictable. I can't help but wonder what the recent election results would have been had the party affiliations been absent from the voting machines? Some extremely competent and hard-working folks, by far the cream of this year's electoral crop, were passed over because of party affiliations. Past performance and previous electability all evaporated on election day with the endorsement systems we have in place. No matter how I look at it, I just can't escape the fact that a significant number of people simply pull the levers next to their favorite color.
All that aside, my fervent hope is that everyone recognizes that all the candidates have the town's interest at heart, and now we can all start pulling in the same direction.
Congratulations to all our newly elected officals.
Post a Comment