republicans

Could the 26th go Blue?

By Philip Anselmo
Oct 30, 2008, 1:28pm

One of our readers this morning turned our attention to an article from the Washington Post, which claims that nationwide "struggles" faced by Sen. John McCain are causing problems for Republicans in Congressional races around the country.

Particularly difficult for Republican prospects is that McCain appears to be trailing badly in several moderate suburban districts across the Midwest and New England, while he is doing worse than President Bush did in rural conservative districts.

[...]

Democrats hold a 51 to 49 edge in the Senate when the two independents who caucus with them are factored in, and a 236 to 199 House majority. Rothenberg predicted that Democrats will pick up 27 to 33 House seats, and make gains of six to nine seats in the Senate. The Cook Political Report, another independent political forecaster, suggests that Democrats will net 23 to 28 House seats, and pick up seven to nine Republican-held Senate seats.

Normally, this would be a topic for our Nation & World section, but this article calls out our very own 26th District as a potential upset in a region that many would have considered a GOP stronghold.

In New York's 26th District, internal GOP polls show McCain trailing (Sen. Barack) Obama by a narrow margin, sources said. Bush won the Buffalo-based district by 12 percentage points in 2004. The race to replace retiring Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.) is considered a tossup.

In that race, Democrat Alice Kryzan will square off against Republican Chris Lee, who himself has been criticized for a lack of visibility since getting the Republican nod with little effort earlier this year.

A post on the Albany Project today takes up this same issue. It turns out the Democratic Congressional Compaign Committee recently pumped $475,340 into the race for the 26th, compared with the $27,918 put up by the National Republican Congressional Committee. That same post claims that the race has now been predicted to swing to the Democrats.

What do you think? Could the GOP lose their grip on the 26th District come Tuesday? Does a lead by Obama equate to an advantage for Kryzan? What are the factors that will decide this vote one way or another Tuesday?

News roundup: Water main break

By Philip Anselmo
Oct 9, 2008, 8:47am

A water main downtown broke this morning leaving folks along Woodrow Road between Main Street and West Avenue without water service. WBTA's Dan Fischer reports that the city has no estimate on when service will be fully restored.

If you're looking to get a McCain-Palin sign to stick in your front lawn this election season, you will have to get in line. Genesee County's GOP headquarters reported that they have not been able to handle the demand for the signs, and they've run out. More should arrive Tuesday.

Some reasons why we have a two-party system

By Russ Stresing
Jul 23, 2008, 9:09am

There are a number of arguments to be made about the positives and negatives of America's two-party system. This essay, though, is meant to address a few reasons why its unlikely that more than two parties in this country will ever have substantial political power without wide-ranging changes in our methods of elections.

In any election beyond the local school board or city council (in a few areas of the country), the single candidate with the most votes takes it all in what has been called a "first to the post" system. A candidate needs to get one vote more than the next best candidate to win it all. (This applies even in states like Louisiana where an open primary is held and the top two vote getters advance to a general election run-off, regardless of party affiliation) That means the person who garners the most votes is the sole representative of that ward, district, or state. With two parties, that's one vote more than 50% of the total, or 50% + 1. However, since in our system a plurality is all that is needed, it could mean that with 3 candidates, it could conceivably end up 34%, 33%, 33%. While almost 50% of the electorate in the first example doesn't get its choice, 66% in the second example are disappointed. Without awarding the political parties seats proportional to the votes cast in their favor, its unlikely that this system would support a viable third party.

In the sort of parliamentary system that supports having more than two parties, representation is awarded to the party according to how many voted on their line. We don't have that same proportional allotment. As our election system is now constructed, a multi-party election wouldn't necessarily lead to more a representational government but, in fact, could be less representative of the greater will of the voting public. Imagine a four-way race, each group having a special interest platform. Instead of 1/2 the voters getting at least a semblance of what they voted for, a 26% voter tally could mean that a party with a very narrow focus, even what might be a fringe position, could end up 'representing' the other 74% who have little or nothing in common with them. This is the sort of outcome that is possible beyond a two-party race in a winner-take-all system. Unless America moves to design a method of electing legislative representatives proportionally, who would then form coalitions to pick our federal officials, a two-party system is the most likely scenario we will have.

Subscribe to republicans