[Miss Scarlett]

Originally Posted by Kobi

There used to be a time when I believed party affiliation meant something. There used to be a time when I felt certain groups were more aligned with my values and beliefs. Then I found that regardless of what was being said, what was done once in office was an entirely different matter.

So, now I evaluate candidates based on plausability i.e. vote for me rhetoric vs what seems possible given the structure we live in and the current prevailing voter preferences.

I am always anti-incumbent simply because I believe being in office, even once, makes for strange bedfellows - a practice that needs to be corrected. And, career politicans....are, to me, dangerous people regardless of what they supposedly stand for.

I love the Canadian approach to elections. It is swift, cost effective, and over and done with!

Very well said Kobi. I agree with everything except your position on incumbents. Not all of them are bad. I prefer to look at them on an individual basis and cast my vote accordingly.

There are members of the House who seem to be there forever no matter how bad they are. Here in the 9th District in NC once you are elected you are there until YOU decide to leave. It's just about impossible to unseat the incumbent for that House seat. We have a similar problem on the local level here in Charlotte/Mecklenburg with our County Commission, School Board and City Council.

The Canadian and British approach makes much more sense. This business of taking 2 years to run for president is crazy. It's like when John Edwards was elected to the Senate. As soon as he took office he began his Presidential campaign and largely ignored North Carolina and his duties in the Senate.