Poll - Democrat or Republican?

[green 6]

Thanks, Indio. Up here it is all just a question of getting your name on the voters' list. This is very, very easy. And once it is there it stays there for all elections - municipal, provincial (state) and federal - until you move. Even if you have moved, establishing your right to vote is no big deal beaurocracy wise.

[green 6]

P.S. Congratulations with your splendid weight loss, Indio.

[IndioGirl55 32]

P.S. Congratulations with your splendid weight loss, Indio.

Thanks Green :wink2: I am doing the work

[BJean 16]

There are some rules about registering and voting that do seem to put people off. I agree with Canada. One shouldn't really have to declare and align with a particular party. I used to know why they did this, but I've forgotten I guess. It honestly doesn't make sense from a freedom to choose standpoint.

I believe it is discriminatory anyway. Why it is anyone's business which party you choose to align with?

I am registered as one thing and my DH, DD, DS, DIL, and SIL are all registered as another. They were all called to serve on jury duty - even multiple times - and I wasn't called. After 8 years, I finally got a summons last year. They use your voter registeration to register you for jury duty here. I couldn't help but scratch my head over that one.

Jack may have the answers for you.

[green 6]

Ugh! I was called up for jury duty twice in the past 3 years. This in a large city! Talk about yer lightning strikes!

Fortunately I am a depressive loon and was able to get a note from my doctor to that effect. In fact I didn't want to do it because I am not an AM person and because I hear that it is very boring. And I have social claustrophia, get restless, and must be able to move around; um, I guess that would be the loony aspect of my personality, right? lol

[DynamoMini 1]

I am going to my first caucus, not as a voter, because I am independent, but I hope to get a clearer view of the Hillary vs Obama positions. I think it will be chaotic, but what the heck? What a country!

I lean more democratic, especially after our dear President Bush , our war, and our deficit. But I maintain an open mind until voting day in November. I agree that it is a crock. It seems that whatever platform they run on they change once in office. I have a concern that Obama doesn't have the know how to get stuff done in Washington (like Carter - who was brilliant but unable to get his ideas into practice). I think a lot of it is who is around the President that makes stuff happen. Both good and bad. Maybe we should look beyond the candidates, to the machines that are putting them into office.

Wow! I didn't know I had so much to say about this.

Hugs to you all and happy voting,

Michelle

[BJean 16]

Dynamo, I'd wager that a lot of Americans have feelings and information that they often don't make public because it is such a volatile topic. Most people I know don't want to discuss it because, like with religion, there's always someone in the crowd who likes to viciously shoot down everyone else's beliefs. Few people are prepared or want to defend their ideas when there's a person lurking who is just waiting to pounce of them.

[BJean 16]

Green you definitely do not sound like someone who would enjoy jury duty.

I have been on a grisly murder trial (we had her skull and bloody clothes in the deliberation room) and a traffic accident trial (rear ender) that were both very interesting.

The process of the deliberations is pretty grueling though because with a few exceptions, everyone on the jury wants to do the job they're expected to do. So it can be a long, drawn out affair.

We actually had a woman who we were pretty sure was being paid by the Defendant's attorney on the murder jury. Fortunately we had a foreman who was extremely savvy and he put her in a position where she couldn't argue with the fact that the killer did it. Otherwise I am sure that we'd still be debating it today. That's one reason you might not enjoy it. You would be frustrated by overwhelming stupidity.

[green 6]

Green you definitely do not sound like someone who would enjoy jury duty.

I have been on a grisly murder trial (we had her skull and bloody clothes in the deliberation room) and a traffic accident trial (rear ender) that were both very interesting.

The process of the deliberations is pretty grueling though because with a few exceptions, everyone on the jury wants to do the job they're expected to do. So it can be a long, drawn out affair.

We actually had a woman who we were pretty sure was being paid by the Defendant's attorney on the murder jury. Fortunately we had a foreman who was extremely savvy and he put her in a position where she couldn't argue with the fact that the killer did it. Otherwise I am sure that we'd still be debating it today. That's one reason you might not enjoy it. You would be frustrated by overwhelming stupidity.

The point which you introduce in your final paragraph was the only issue which made me feel guilty about skiving off jury duty. I am a fairly detached and savvy individual. I am also fairly good at taking charge. All of this would have been something of value to offer up to our legal system as a member of a jury panel. But I am also a raving neurotic. Whaddya gonna do?

[green 6]

I am going to my first caucus, not as a voter, because I am independent, but I hope to get a clearer view of the Hillary vs Obama positions. I think it will be chaotic, but what the heck? What a country!

I lean more democratic, especially after our dear President Bush , our war, and our deficit. But I maintain an open mind until voting day in November. I agree that it is a crock. It seems that whatever platform they run on they change once in office. I have a concern that Obama doesn't have the know how to get stuff done in Washington (like Carter - who was brilliant but unable to get his ideas into practice). I think a lot of it is who is around the President that makes stuff happen. Both good and bad. Maybe we should look beyond the candidates, to the machines that are putting them into office.

Wow! I didn't know I had so much to say about this.

Hugs to you all and happy voting,

Michelle

Dynamo! It is so nice to hear your voice again, grrl! You have been MIA for awhile now. Welcome home.

[BJean 16]

Well done, Jack. I think a lot of people have been confused by this. We probably all learned about it in grade school, but many of us could use a refresher course.

I worked for the Attorney General of Virginia years ago and watched cases progress that were centered around this very topic. So it is quite real and one reason why I am a bit frustrated when I hear people talk about political parties being of little importance.

[green 6]

Thanks, Jack. I am a little less confused but only a little less confused. Though it is understandable that successful parties will naturally desire to have the electoral lines in their districts redrawn in order ensure their future successes at the local polls, I still don't understand why voters should be required to publically indicate their affiliations with certain parties through this biz of registering. It is, afterall, pretty easy to discern by the results of a clutch of polls and the results of the election proper as to where the sympathies of an electoral district may lie without its voters being required to reveal their own political sympathies. It strikes me that the essence of the democratic election is that we all have the freedom to chose our own poison without scrutiny. This point of privacy is awful important, I think. This means that no one will be forced to suffer a smack-down by either one's government or one's fellow men for having had the courage or the blind stupidity to have opted for the wrong/unpopular choice.

As for the desire of winning parties to have the geographical lines re-drawn in order that these new boundaries satisfy the noisiest political voices in the hood, well, I can see advantages to this. All communities are naturally anxious to elect representatives who do reflect the values and the interests of their own neighbourhoods. This makes sense, doncha think? We all want to elect representatives who will speak for us, who will represent our own local concerns. Gerrymandering may be viewed as a very, very shady activity or as a legitimate desire to ensure that those neighbourhoods who are relatively homogeneous will have a chance of being able to elect representatives who are truly able to express their concerns. Although I do not personally agree with the practice of gerrymandering I thought that it might be fun to toss out the above argument.

[BJean 16]

Too bad we can't depend upon our elected officials to always do the honest and right thing. If we could, we wouldn't have to worry about gerrymandering and hundreds of other potentially corrupt political activities.

[tripod65 1]

I personally don't think there is a politician out there,on either side,who gives a rat's ass about anything other than their own re-election and personal power.

[BJean 16]

IMHO there are people who get into politics with noble intentions, but when they get involved in any kind of race to win an election, too many palms have to be crossed and too many promises are made that don't have the best interests of the masses in mind.

Some politicians are worse than others though, there's no doubt about that. People can win a race without compromising every facet of their moral character but others never had any moral character from the start.