Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Election Wiki Update and Open Forum

I wanted everyone to know that I have updated the elections wiki, which has been generalized for all Connecticut elections instead of just 2006.

This means we can start putting data about upcoming municipal elections into this wiki. The CT Election 2006 wiki was a good source of information--I would like to see the same level of coverage, if not better, for municipal elections. There has not much information about these elections on the Web in the past, so I think it will fill a need.

Also, somewhat off-topic (but related to Web 2.0 applications like wikis), you may want to check out a new site called NewsTrust, which is a new way of rating news stories.

What else is happening today?


Anonymous said...

Genghis, that is a great idea to do the municipal elections. Good job! However, you said that you updated the wiki. Can you elaborate on what you have updated? It's probably just me, but can't tell what has changed. Thank you.

Genghis Conn said...

The name has been changed and I've slightly revamped the front page. More changes will be coming.

Genghis Conn said...

Oh, the URL is different. It was http://ctelection2006.pbwiki.com, and is now http://ctelections.pbwiki.com.

Aldon Hynes said...

The new wiki does look very similar to the old one, however, the municipality sections appears to be where the interesting stuff will be happening. You'll notice that Bridgeport and New Haven have a little information.

It would be great if everyone here could provide information on their municipality. Do you have a Mayor? A First Selectman? Is there a city council or an RTM? How many people are on the council or RTM? Do you have your municipal elections in May or November? How long are the terms for the chief elected officer, two years? Four years? Are there any interesting things going on with the municipalities charter? And of course, what can you tell us about what happened in the most recent municipal election?

Aldon Hynes said...

Genghis, thanks for highlighting NewsTrust. I've been playing with it quite a bit since it was in early pilot and I really like the site.

Because of that, you will find that there are a lot of up.

Even if you disagree with me, or perhaps especially if you disagree with me, I would encourage you to join NewsTrust and review articles there.

RedHand said...

I've been reading this blog for a number of months. But this is my first posting. Since this an open forum I hope is appropriate here.

What prompts me to write is the number of comments in various threads about the plight and prospects of Republican Party (for example from Colin commenting on Diana Urban's switch) suggesting that the new House Minority Leader, Larry Cafero, is some sort of right-winger whose zealotry is the cause of GOP losses.

Colin wrote that he had information that Diana Urban switched parties because Larry Cafero did not appoint her to the Appropriations Committee. Yet, when Colin interviewed her on his radio show Representative Urban, repeatedly denied that Cafero was the cause of her switch. She has been consistent in saying that she switched because of the decline of the influence of “Rockefeller Republicans” and “Teddy Roosevelt Republicans”. I take her word that her decision was part of a gradual evolution. It must have been very gradual since Goldwater defeated Rockefeller in 1964, and President Gerald Ford dumped Rockefeller as a running mate in 1976 in order to prevent Reagan from capturing the Republican nomination; after Reagan was elected in 1980 and reelected in 1984 the fate of “Rockefeller Republicans” at the national level should have been obvious. Lowell Weicker's Senate reelection defeat in 1988 and his departure from the Republican Party in 1990 confirmed the eclipse of the “Rockefeller Republican” even in Connecticut a decade before she first ran. Representative Urban, must have been the last “Rockefeller Republican” left.

In this thread, it was suggested that the defeats of Stone, Tymniak and Sherer were the result of, their no votes on the “lost or stolen firearms” amendment and that Larry Cafero had pressured them to vote that way. So far as I know Cafero exerted no pressure on any member of the House Republican caucus to vote for or against, the amendment (Senate A). Interestingly Senate A was defeated because of the large number of Democrats who voted against it. Many of these Democrats were the so-called “Moderates” but the critical votes came from the Latino legislators. I have not heard that any of them were defeated because of their votes against that amendment. Someone else has already pointed out that the three defeated in Fairfield County Republicans had a number of problems and that while this vote may have played a role it was not the primary cause of their defeats.

But my main point is that Larry Cafero is being blamed for things he did not do in order to portray him as a right-wing extremist, which he is not. For example he voted for the civil unions bill (same as Diana Urban) and for the last three years he has voted with the League of Conservation Voters, about 66% of the time. Look at who he appointed as his Deputies: Bill Hamzy who has drawn generally favorable comments on this blog, and Themis Klarides who voted with Representative Urban more than most Republicans.

Chris MC said...

Great opening salvo Red Hand.


And you're right, Cafero is no right wing zealot. He is the man for Democrats to watch out for going forward.

With the addition of Gallo as his Chief; the strength of the Democratic caucuses in both Houses making Rell all but a lame duck from day one; and Rell's irrelevance to the CT Republican Party including her complete lack of "coat tails" (or any effort to create them); the center of gravity for the CTGOP is squarely in the House Minority Leader's office.

Politics aside, he's a good guy besides.

Wolcottboy said...

Red Hand,

Good post!
And its true that there's really alot of swapping votes between the Republicans and Democrats at the Capitol on certain issues. There's quite a few Democrats that will side with the Republicans- depending on the issue. I think the talk of the super-majority is over stated and some Democrats might end up switching parties within 2 years, being hardpressed to keep the entire party in line.