Last week I wrote about Eliot Spitzer’s plan to flip control of the state Senate by luring at least three Republicans to the Democratic side of the aisle, which would create a new majority in that house.
The fact that Spitzer administration officials are talking about flipping three seats, as opposed to the two that would produce a tie in the Senate, is very deliberate.
Yes, the rules of the Senate dictate that Democratic Lt. Governor David Paterson would be able to cast a tie-breaking vote, giving the Democrats a major advantage.
Yet I’ve heard from people on both sides of the aisle in the Senate that their lawyers are now busy double-checking what actually happens in the chamber under a tie scenario, and what the means would be of distributing power between the parties.
Is there any way this isn’t going to end in controversy?
— Azi Paybarah