So, would I be correct in assuming you don't vote, either?

-Kerry O.

If you vote based on what they tell you during elections, you're being a bit sheepish.

Research past stances. Research what they've done, not what they say they're going to do. The past is normally a very good indicator of where the future will go.

I do. It's like if I hope for the best, while knowing it is all futile.

It is when I look back, I see that there was no difference made.

When I did that with George Bush (basing it on what people I know in Texas told me), I found that even though I didn't feel great about casting my vote for Al Gore, I couldn't possibly have voted for W.

I doubt that that was the response you were hoping for, but all my worst nightmares about George Bush came true. I got to say 'I told you so' to family and people I work with.

Besides, although I'm registered Independent and I think it helps to be so registered because they can't see your cards, so to speak, the whole system will be sheep-like until we can do what the Europeans have done and have more than two viable political parties.

-Kerry O.

I see your point. But then, what would prevent say 4 parties to propose all the same, as is the case with our two parties now?

I see the problem with the people. They mostly want to rob each other, and that is a rat race.

I'm glad you do. I get really irked with people who won't take the time to perform a basic civic duty secured by a lot of blood, sweat and tears of those who came before them.

Apathy never built a utopia and never will.

-Kerry O.

I tend to be cynic, too. But games theory teaches us that The Prisoner's Dilemma has us all by the short ones at times and that sometimes a strategy of selective cooperation only gets us dealt the sucker card once in a while. The scorpions find it harder and harder to find ferries across the drink if they never change.

-Kerry O.

No, that is exactly the answer I wanted. I too am independent and I never even voted for either in the 2004 election (I did vote, the president box was just empty) because I could not decide which evil was worse. I saw how Bush had led the country but I felt that Kerry getting in would be worse. i did the same this last November with the two believing that even McCain was not fiscally responsible enough. however, I knew it was going to be worse under Obama so i voted McCain (of course, being in CA, I knew who would win anyway).

All I ask of people is to actually research topics on their own speak their mind with rational thought - not what some blog of the MSM tells you to believe.

I just wish there was a way to Constitutionally and practically have a "None of the Above" entry on the ballot, and if "None" 'won', a new election would be required with a different slate of candidates. It seems a lot of people have pangs of the 'lesser of two evils' syndrome in the Booth and leaving the space blank seems like only a token redress of doubt.

If it's any consolation, I think your state has been quietly tearing its political self apart for years. No doubt about it, CA is in a real pickle and I'm not very optimistic about lawmakers like Pelosi being able to make the sea change necessary to get it out of trouble. I became permanently turned off by Pelosi's spectacle last fall of using this emergency for political gains, and wouldn't mind having your state removing her like South Dakota did to Daschle and Georgia did to Newt Gingrich before her. That business with Steny Hoyer didn't wash very well with this Progressive, either.

As the old Latin lament goes, "Who is to control the Authorities?"

-Kerry O.

I would like that to be a real option on a ballot.

I also have an idea: Say you supposed to pay 30 grand in taxes this year. O.K., now pick a published booklet with government spending listed, and write in amounts in each box that you'd like your taxes to go to. Some boxes get $100, some $1000, some get none at all. Then you mail that in with your taxes.

We can wish, right?