I have been covering politics for 61 years - 45 of those in Pennsylvania and 16 in New York state. I have tried to guard against being a cynic, but it has become increasingly more difficult with each passing year.

Having a master’s degree in political science, my goal is to follow the research and the evidence. I have covered political campaigns from president of the United States to mayor, and they all have one thing in common: promises.

To believe that a candidate, especially one who is not a dictator - and we don’t have any of those in our country, at least not yet - can single-handedly implement laws misunderstands how our government of checks and balances operates.

In our state legislature, for example, to pass a law requires approval by both houses of the General Assembly and the concurrence of the governor. The same is true at the national level. Both houses of Congress must approve a bill, which is then shipped to the president for his approval.

Vetoes by either our governor or the president can be overridden by the legislative branch with a two-thirds supermajority vote, but that is usually very difficult to achieve.

While I can cite many local examples of cliques on borough councils, township supervisor boards and especially school boards, I am going to focus on our state legislature.

When legislation is enacted in either our House of Representatives or Senate in Harrisburg, I am frequently finding this description in published news stories, as was the case with the recent passage in the Senate of a bill to require school districts to post the names of all textbooks and a syllabus or course summary of every class: “The vote was 29-21 with all Republicans in favor and all Democrats opposed.”

Or the bill in the House that would ban private money from state elections: “The 113-90 party-line vote had all Republicans in favor and all Democrats opposed.”

OK. Let’s go back to the promises. Let’s say by some miracle that a Democrat upset either Doyle Heffley, R-Carbon, or Jerry Knowles, R-Schuylkill/Carbon, based on promises the candidate made which really resonated with the voters.

Here is the reality: It would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for this Democrat-sponsored legislation to make it through the Republican-controlled legislature.

I don’t care how fantastic the legislation is - it could be the best idea since sliced bread - it still doesn’t stand a chance without Republican intervention. Why? Because it’s sponsored by a person from the minority party. Don’t think Democrats are saints either. When they controlled the legislature, the same was true of Republican-sponsored legislation.

Once in a blue moon, a Democrat-sponsored piece of legislation makes it through the process, but typically it requires piggybacking with Republican help and often is modified in committee with Republican intervention. Rep. Mike Schlossberg, D-Lehigh, had success earlier this year with his legislation to allow local communities and agencies to establish overdose fatality review teams, but the bill was amended by a Republican-dominated committee.

How much independence do lawmakers have in voting their own conscience? You might be surprised at how cautious they must be so as not to rile their party’s leadership, especially if the party hierarchy is depending on their vote.

You can’t tell me in the two examples cited earlier that not one Republican or one Democrat would have voted otherwise if there was not pressure to toe the party line.

Party leaders and committee chairs are not referred to as dictators - at least not openly - but their actions at times say otherwise.

If Republican leadership backs a bill that it deems absolutely necessary, and a Republican legislator voted against it, believing that it was not in the best interest of his or her constituents, this independence could cost him or her dearly. Vengeance is mine, says the party’s leadership, and it has the power to do any number of things: Prevent passage of projects that would benefit a legislator’s district, isolate him or her from the mainstream, even to the point of finding a candidate to oppose the “rebel” in the next primary.

It’s a crummy system, ladies and gentlemen, but candidates continue to play the game of making promises they likely cannot keep. Most of them are pawns in an ugly chess game.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com

The foregoing opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board or Times News LLC.