[CT_Yank]

Originally Posted by dazzleman

I think the Fairfield Charter Provision was very poorly presented. I actually studied it in advance, and found it murky and difficult to understand. I can't imagine going to vote, reading it, and deciding on the spot to vote for or against it. It was just too confusing, and when that is the case, the fallback is to vote no.

Like most things these days, it also fell victim to partisan politics. Democrats seemed fiercely against it but I don't really know why, other than to give Kupchick a black eye, or maybe because they lost out on the decision of how to present it.

I doubt one person in ten actually understood it. I wouldn't count myself as one of them. I think issues like this are poorly suited for presentation to a public that doesn't understand the issue.

Ultimately, it was poorly defended by Kupchick. There may have been some good changes but the overall message was they wanted to add two more guaranteed paid roles to the town books while removing the need for DPW director to have engineering degree. It came across to many that she was trying to change charter to get her buddy the DPW job.

[Neil Watkins]

Originally Posted by MikefromCT

For anyone who says their vote doesn't count or that voting doesn't matter, here is proof that it does.

Not if you were going to vote for the winner.

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by Neil Watkins

Not if you were going to vote for the winner.

But that's my point. In the case of Southington, the candidate won by a single vote. When we go to the polls, we show up with uncertainty as to who is going to win. Even if the pollsters predict a solid victory for one person or another, we still have to show up and vote to make it happen. Nothing is a sure thing. Not anymore. Personally I think it's wonderful that so many people deputized themselves and got themselves out to the voting booth, especially for a midterm election, where turnout is always below average.

[Neil Watkins]

Originally Posted by MikefromCT

But that's my point. In the case of Southington, the candidate won by a single vote. When we go to the polls, we show up with uncertainty as to who is going to win. Even if the pollsters predict a solid victory for one person or another, we still have to show up and vote to make it happen. Nothing is a sure thing. Not anymore. Personally I think it's wonderful that so many people deputized themselves and got themselves out to the voting booth, especially for a midterm election, where turnout is always below average.

That all sounds right to me. I was just pointing out what struck me as a logically incorrect, not arguing that voting isn't important.

[New Englander]

Originally Posted by dazzleman

I think the Fairfield Charter Provision was very poorly presented. I actually studied it in advance, and found it murky and difficult to understand. I can't imagine going to vote, reading it, and deciding on the spot to vote for or against it. It was just too confusing, and when that is the case, the fallback is to vote no.

Like most things these days, it also fell victim to partisan politics. Democrats seemed fiercely against it but I don't really know why, other than to give Kupchick a black eye, or maybe because they lost out on the decision of how to present it.

I doubt one person in ten actually understood it. I wouldn't count myself as one of them. I think issues like this are poorly suited for presentation to a public that doesn't understand the issue.

Got it. That makes a lot of sense. I was curious about it as I try to follow Fairfield news under normal circumstances however, I was busy and lost track.

[New Englander]

Originally Posted by CT_Yank

Ultimately, it was poorly defended by Kupchick. There may have been some good changes but the overall message was they wanted to add two more guaranteed paid roles to the town books while removing the need for DPW director to have engineering degree. It came across to many that she was trying to change charter to get her buddy the DPW job.

Ah got it! It's never a good look when it's poorly defended and there are perceptions of nepostism. Thank you for adding your thoughts.

[mdovell]

I know of an election of a mayor in Massachusetts where she lost by about a hundred. They did the vote and she still lost and she literally disappeared from the city. I'd argue that politically sometimes it's better to lose by a lot than to lose by a little. There's an old saying that the worst metal in the Olympics is silver not bronze because at least if you get bronze you know you can move up a few pigs with silver it can be pretty close.

On the issue of crime I don't think the overall crime rate in the state is High having said that though I think some of it's spilling over. Anybody with ideas that crime just stays in urban areas hasn't been paying attention. Smartphones with GPS and access to Firearms can pretty much get people to places.

I don't think it's asking too much to put actual violent criminals away. I'm not blaming either party but people do want to feel at least somewhat safe. I could see the argument that some criminals simply have less customers and cities due to work from home so they're going to go further and further out. I know places in Massachusetts where the drug dealers live in the cities but the drug users are all in the suburbs and you can see the delivery is going back and forth.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...ty/firearm.htm

We can see that there is a huge difference in the amount of firearm mortalities per state. I'm not trying to desensitize shootings but it's like another world. When you've got six times the amount of shootings in one state versus another even adjusted for per capita you have to wonder why. That's why when we see crime like the surge in homicides in Hartford have such a dramatic impact it's because we really don't see that in much of the state. On an odd note it's sort of reminds me about in China when you have the one child policy and then that child dies. Every child is an only child.

Republicans to win they have to drop any support from the NRA. It's going to be hard to argue that we should loosen gun laws and still expect to have the same crime levels. At the same point the left can't make arguments about defunding the police when they're the only ones that can actually arrest and deter people from committing violent crimes. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws of the country so if you remove the police to help defend yourself that who else or what else is left?