The Hyde Park Republican and Democrat committees endorsed candidates for the upcoming election. After watching their disastrous performance with the Poughkeepsie Journal I had to ask why would a group feel confident enough to endorse candidates that were:1) ill-prepared on the issues, 2) gave incorrect information 3) did not know the answers.
Personally if I was on either committee I would be embarrassed to show my face in public knowing that I put my name behind my candidate of choice.
Because the candidates are choses by a select few, which endorsed them and presented to the public to partake in the election process, is Hyde Park, or for any matter the entire election process based upon the Elitist Model which is defined as follows:

Elite (elitist) theory The theoretical view held by many social scientists which holds that American politics is best understood through the generalization that nearly all political power is held by a relatively small and wealthy group of people sharing similar values and interests and mostly coming from relatively similar privileged backgrounds. Most of the top leaders in all or nearly all key sectors of society are seen as recruited from this same social group, and elite theorists emphasize the degree to which interlocking corporate and foundation directorates, old school ties and frequent social interaction tend to link together and facilitate coordination between the top leaders in business, government, civic organizations, educational and cultural establishments and the mass media. This "power elite" can effectively dictate the main goals (if not always the practical means and details) for all really important government policy making (as well as dominate the activities of the major mass media and educational/cultural organizations in society) by virtue of their control over the economic resources of the major business and financial organizations in the country. Their power is seen as based most fundamentally on their personal economic resources and especially on their positions within the top management of the big corporations, and does not really depend upon their ability to garner mass support through efforts to "represent" the interests of broader social groups. Elitist theoreticians differ somewhat among themselves on such questions as how open the power elite is to "new blood," the exact degree of agreement or disagreement that usually prevails within its ranks, and the degree of genuine concern (or lack thereof) for the broader public welfare that enters into their choices of public policy goals, but all such theorists broadly share the notion that it is these few thousand "movers and shakers" who really run the country and determine the basic directions of public policy, certainly not the manipulated and powerless masses of ordinary voters choosing among candidates at election time.

I tend to disagree with Joseph Kakish and Aileen Rohr are 'movers and shakers.' A more accurate description would be 'burn-out and clueless' (respective to each candidate, you decide what label fits who).

In any case, this model that 25 or more individuals base their decision clearly not on the best interest of Hyde Park angers me that these are the two candidates that we have to chose from. Perhaps an organized (and peacefg protest outside the site where the next Republican and Democrat Town Committee meeting is in order?