After reading (GE News) about the candidates for the upcoming election I couldn't help but wonder:

Why don't candidates take pride in their party affilation? Nonpartisan, come on..........

If they can't tell us what they really stand for, would they really make a good community leader?

I'm conservative and proud of it. I'd love to know what side, offically, (I suspect nonpartisan means liberal) of the political fence those that are running sit on.

It is unfortunate that the election coverage in the Glen Ellyn News this week had errors and asked questions that were not pertinent to the school board elections.

Per school board policies, elections are non-partisan and candidates should have answered N/A or non-partisan.

2:30 School Board Elections

"Elections conducted by the School District are non-partisan elections governed by the general election laws of the State and include the election of School Board members, various public policy propositions, and advisory questions. School Board members are elected at the consolidated election held on the first Tuesday in April in odd-numbered years."

“Nonpartisan” generally refers to the type of election, not the individuals running in it.

Best recent example-- the City of Chicago's Mayoral (and Aldermanic) race. It may have seemed like a Democratic primary, but it was a nonpartisan event... Anyone with enough signatures could run... party didn't matter. Winner became Mayor with no further contests.

Not unlike when a non-profit organization like the Jayces or Kiwanis vote to elect their presidents, treasurers, secretaries etc. Non-partisan, in the sense that no one has to declare their registered voter party affiliation. Same idea.

Most voters prefer nonpartisan elections for offices such as judge, clerk, sheriff, attorney general and the like where inflicting party principles while n the job should never play a role (in a perfect world).

Across the country school board, park district, etc. elections are generally nonpartisan contests... party doesn't matter. If a candidate meets the requirements they can run; their party affiliation doesn't matter. There is rarely a primary; the individuals running could be all from one party... or the other... or Green Party, Tea Party or Bachelor Party. It simply doesn't matter.

G.E.'s CBP Town Meeting is as close as we get to a “primary” for the municipal and library board general elections... but it isn't really a true “primary” in a legal or even philosophical sense.

Vote early. Vote often.

The block of candidates that are running together
Kathy Cornell, Gary Mayo and Richard all pulled Democrat ballots in the:

2010 Primary
2008 Primary
2006 Primary &
2004 Primary

According to the DuPage County Election Commission.

Catherine Galvin has always pulled a Republican ballot in the primary according to the DuPge Board of Elections.

Thanks for confirming what I thought Wolve. It does help some understood what a candidate might stand for if you don't know much else about them.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine:
The block of candidates that are running together
Kathy Cornell, Gary Mayo and Richard all pulled Democrat ballots in the:

2010 Primary
2008 Primary
2006 Primary &
2004 Primary

According to the DuPage County Election Commission.

Catherine Galvin has always pulled a Republican ballot in the primary according to the DuPge Board of Elections.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Grateful,

The Republican candidates aren't going to promote their affiliation in this type of election because in 2011 politics their party affiliation typically attracts poorer and less educated (err, dimmer) voters. The prototypical wingnuts and Tea Partiers would be out in force. Rather than focusing on education, they'll be bringing up things like "hispanics" and "re-drawing districts" and other stuff they read on internet blogs and discussion boards (or as they call it "news"). For this type of election, that type of appeal would be suicidal.

That works in voting for House of Reps-type elections where you can spread the crazy around.

Wow. Paranoia strikes deep. Using the Park District and School Board to gain a foothold for area Democrats. This kind of team view of the world is really disappointing.

But, when you get a moment, try and count the number of Democrats elected in this area. Then you can look at the strong Republican base that is Milton Township and wonder why your taxes are so high. Must be those damn Democrats who never get elected.

Get over it.

If Creech was really trying to turn the Glen Ellyn Park District, and thereby all of DuPage County, Democratic she sure didn't go about it right. First she ran for the park district board, which has never produced a politician who ever won any other election for any other board. Second, she ran with Jay Kinzler, who is about as Republican as you can get. She votes with him about 90% of the time. Not the best strategy for establishing a Democratic foothold.

How does the party affiliation of the park board members affect Glen Ellyn? The deep division between old board and new seems to be based on differences on spending. Sandy Minogue and Bill Dallman are both Democrats and they couldn't disagree with Creech any more if they tried. Bill Tayor, who Creech beat, is also a Democrat.

Looking at the current candidates, Cornell Mayo and Dunn are running on cutting out-of-control spending at the Park District, while Galvin defended the actions of Hess and company, saying "Deficit spending is not uncommon for anyone."

There doesn't seem to be any connection between party affiliation and the way these people think the park district should work. I think any smart voter can see that.

Always wanted to vote for a Democrat now I guess this Tuesday I get my chance.

Roskam would lose a primary fight if anyone had the nerve. Unless he is involved in a scandal, no Democrat has the support to beat him. Face facts. I have.

How do we lose five Republican congressman. One yes they will Gerrymander the districts to do just that but five will take some doing. Could happen. A Presidential election brings higher turnout and a few of the Freshman GOP congressman got in by pretty slim votes.

I think the two best possibilities are down state where there are three districts two republican one democrat set it up so it becomes one of each.

north shore has three republican congressman move some democratic voters up north and you can make it two republican congressman.

The Democrats are smart to go after DuPage county. More minorities here. More government workers two of their biggest support bases are here. So its a smart move.

The GOP screws up in not being more aggressive in Cook especially in Chicago. There were a few wards in the City that were 40% or more for Brady in the last election. People in Chicago were mad at higher taxes, lousy schools, the bungled parking meter deal, high crime etc so there was a chance to win the election there.

Chicago has lost seven percent of its population but worse for the Democrats a larger percent of its African American population has left as well. So they need to branch out. The GOP should be taking notes.
I mean if they actually want to win something.

...after reading through these posts, isn't it just possible that a candidate might just be running because they simply want to get involved? Or are all candidates/elected officals really party stooges placed on the ballots by the national/state Republican/Democratic committees?

...I'll have to ask some school board members I know what their secret agendas are....

hah.

The thing is, all this presupposes that people still, and invariably, vote along party lines. I'm really not sure that's all that true anymore. Now, if there aren't strong candidates, well, people may vote for the party they're more comfortable with. But a really strong candidate should be able to appeal to, and serve, all his potential constituents. Heck, if the GOP had found a stronger, or at least more moderate, candidate in the last governor's race, I might have considered voting that way - but Brady, for me, couldn't recover from his extreme social conservatism and well, supporting mass euthanasia of pets.

And, of course, considering in our last local election a grand total of 17% turned out, well, I don't think redistricting is diluting voting, as much as sheer apathy.

Of course, Republicans have never ever set up a map go help themselves out, have they?

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear - I was thinking any political party in any state seeks to make sure maps helped out their candidates. I don't think either party has ever bent over backwards to ensure mapdrawing didn't help them out. And, FWIW, I sometimes don't feel terribly represented by some of the folks elected from this neck of the woods either.

But, at least I get out and vote every election - can't say that for many of my neighbors.

Pollux, whether or not someone thinks their (or others') vote(s) count it irrelevant to the act itself. A democracy is supposed to be set up so that everyone can at least feel like they have an say in what happens....hence the vote.

Not to mention, the way our system is setup (albeit flawed, it's still a system) the areas with the most people have the most say. Does that not seem like the way it should be in order to obtain a somewhat true concept of what the people (generally) want?

I'm not real clear on your last sentence. The lack of punctuation and its run-on status make it a bit difficult to follow. Could you expand on that, please?

I'd also like to note that most of the youth in our country, who don't vote, do it on the principle of not having anyone "real" who supports what they believe in....and the refusal to choose the "lesser of two evils", rather than demanding what's right. Not on whether or not they think their votes will count.

But, again, this presumes blue always, invariably, votes blue, and red invariably votes red....and, don't think that's the case anymore. And also supposes a really strong candidate cannot make a case beyond party lines...which is really sad, I think.

No problems with comprehension, problems with run-on sentences that spew unnecessary rhetoric rather than make a point. Clear and concise is the way to go. Always.

Though thanks for clarifying.

Darl is right. Though our politicians generally seem to have a tendency to play on the votes that occur based simply on party affiliations, there are some who specifically stray from that. Oftentimes the outliers make a bigger difference than estimated. Hello Ron Paul??