Benefits Of Political Loyalty?

[Member 2358]

Curious.

I've heard that within the Town Of Amherst (and prolly elsewhere, too) there are people that will "automatically" support a person or initiative merely due to it's origins in a defined/recognized political party... and, conversely, they will oppose the very same person or initiative were it to be associated by some different political party.

I suppose that folks that were behave like this do it 'cuz they think they benefit in some manner.

What is the real or perceived benefit of acting like this?

[WNYresident]

Not a clue.

[Fact Checker]

Curious.

I've heard that within the Town Of Amherst (and prolly elsewhere, too) there are people that will "automatically" support a person or initiative merely due to it's origins in a defined/recognized political party... and, conversely, they will oppose the very same person or initiative were it to be associated by some different political party.

I suppose that folks that were behave like this do it 'cuz they think they benefit in some manner.

What is the real or perceived benefit of acting like this?

As far as anyone knows, since at least the time of Pres. Grover Cleveland, the Town of Amherst has be run by a Republicans majority on the Town Board. The Dems had a majority for only 2 years in either the late 1980s or early 1990s. So I'd say it is a pretty good assumption that Amherst Republicans only vote for Amherst Republicans and that is why they keep the majority.

What makes it interesting is that the Amherst Republicans always run as reformers correcting the mess of the previous Republican regime.

[left wing]

It is simply not true that people will act in their own best interests. They will blindly follow a political party, regardless of what they are up to. This applies to both sides.

[Dougles]

As far as anyone knows, since at least the time of Pres. Grover Cleveland, the Town of Amherst has be run by a Republicans majority on the Town Board. The Dems had a majority for only 2 years in either the late 1980s or early 1990s. So I'd say it is a pretty good assumption that Amherst Republicans only vote for Amherst Republicans and that is why they keep the majority.

What makes it interesting is that the Amherst Republicans always run as reformers correcting the mess of the previous Republican regime.

So what about when Mohan switch to the DEM party a few years ago and the TB had a DEM majority???

[Member 2358]

It is simply not true that people will act in their own best interests. They will blindly follow a political party, regardless of what they are up to. This applies to both sides.

'k. But why? They must feel that there is something it it for them, no?

[Add It Up]

So what about when Mohan switch to the DEM party a few years ago and the TB had a DEM majority???

Weinstein, Marlette, Schratz = Mohan, Ward, Manna

No majority. The vacant seat was not filled to maintain that status quo.

[Dougles]

Weinstein, Marlette, Schratz = Mohan, Ward, Manna

No majority. The vacant seat was not filled to maintain that status quo.

Didn't mohan "switch" before the vacant seat was open?

[left wing]

Didn't mohan "switch" before the vacant seat was open?

It doesn't matter. Mohan was never a Dem. He just switched because he was in a snit over the Reps. not backing him. And heaven knows the Dems didn't want him. Neither side did.

[4248]

It is simply not true that people will act in their own best interests. They will blindly follow a political party, regardless of what they are up to. This applies to both sides.

I believe all people who vote do so for a host of intermingled reasons:
Personal Identity, Family Beliefs, Employment Influence, Affiliation Identity and so on.

The ones who vote - strict Party Line - regardless of affiliation - do so mainly to belong/to feel they are a part of that group and then they justify their belonging to it by voting.

They have invested some of their lives believing in a "Political Group" - so they are voting to protect their sense of being a part of what they believe is a part of them/their identity. Like being apart of a club or organization.

I don't think the Majority of Party Line Voters are doing it for "Personal Material gain."

Some, seem to use their vote as an "Expression" of their feelings, rather than to strengthen a particular group or belief system. They express their approval or dis-approval of "Government/Politics" and the vote is a tool.

You have a large vocal Majority of "Active Voters" who do perceive a benefit, but again its more emotional than material/monetary gain. They want to support the "Winning Team" - to be a part of the "American System of Democracy." = Being a Winner.

Of course especially and way more obvious in Villages, Towns and County's - you have those who control and or manipulate the process for personal/financial and emotional gain.

I believe most "Prime Voters" don't even truly, totally understand local Government Finance, Impact on taxes, Jobs, or even who the candidates actually are (on a personal level). They know their "Group" has endorsed a "Candidate." They are told, like we saw in Lancaster Highway Race - "Your Committee Endorsed" or "The Party Endorsed."

They receive mailers and see a few adds in the local paper. No solid platform statements, no concrete issues, no true proposed methods of reform. Simply - this is our guy - Ho Ray for Us!

There are many other "Reasons" people vote - only God knows what happens when they do.

[FMD]

It is simply not true that people will act in their own best interests. They will blindly follow a political party, regardless of what they are up to. This applies to both sides.

One only needs to look no farther than the 2008 Presidential Elections.

If that doesnt work, ask Brandon.

[Fact Checker]

So what about when Mohan switch to the DEM party a few years ago and the TB had a DEM majority???

You certainly are one uninformed person. Mohan became a Democrat effective Jan 1, 2009 according to the Board of Elections. You can find that out, if it is not too much work for you to get the facts, by simply calling like I did yesterday.

On Jan. 1, 2009, the Debbie Bucki seat became open. On paper the the board was now 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. The Democrats put up the name of a replacement for Bucki each month for 5 months.

They failed to obtain the required 4 votes to gain the majority as each appointment lost by a 3 Dems voting yes to 3 Reps voting no. The Reps blocked effectively block a Dem majority. Call your buddy Barry to confirm the fact.

Now I'm sure they wish they could place another Republican in Weinstein's newly vacant seat but can't. They've already set precedence. But yet, one has to wonder why Barry won't just vote that seat out of existence right now to speed up the downsizing process. He has plans for that seat ?

Whether the Democrats controlled the board for 2 years out of a 119 years, or, 3 yrs out of a 119 years, the fact remains the Republicans have controlled the town (the town employee roster is filled with with Republican and Conservative Party members, their friends and families) and are the root cause of any complaints the residents or speakupwny posters have to express.

So Weinstein and his cohort ran for office to fix problems caused by the preceding Republicans of which he was a part, believing that the Amherst Republicans will do what they have always done - vote Republican without thinking or caring straight across the party line.

[Dougles]

You certainly are one uninformed person. Mohan became a Democrat effective Jan 1, 2009 according to the Board of Elections. You can find that out, if it is not too much work for you to get the facts, by simply calling like I did yesterday.

I was registered as a republican from 2000 to 2008, but never supported many republicans... it doesn't matter what your registered as, it's how you vote!

[Fact Checker]

It doesn't matter. Mohan was never a Dem. He just switched because he was in a snit over the Reps. not backing him. And heaven knows the Dems didn't want him. Neither side did.

I agree. I seem to recall that sometime in 2008 he said he was going to change sides because of something the National Republican Party did. Don't have a clue what it might have been, but, the thought is in my mind.

I've been to TB meetings where it seemed he had more problems with Manna and Ward, while being closer to Schratz and Marlette.