As a new immigrant, what made you realize which political party in the USA you belonged to?

[Texanadian 10]

To me, the best state government in the USA has to be New Hampshire.

New Hampshire has no state income tax or state sales tax. They are the only state to do this. (Don't let Alaska fool you. Alaska has local sales tax and is highly dependent on the Federal government for subsidization. NH on the other hand sends more to the Feds than they get back)

NH pays their state politicians $100/year salary. Raising it would require a referendum and nobody wants to do that. Despite being a small state, they have 400 state politicians. But with 400 people, your rep really is a local person. He or she probably lives in your neighbourhood. The small area representation makes things work well for the citizens.

Their concealed hand gun permit is $10 and consists of a background check. That is it.

They attract buyers from the neighbouring states due to their lack of sales tax. They have some of the highest median wages in the country. Business friendly. Lots of universities. They really are a model for how the rest of the states should be run. Heck, they even purposely set their cigarette taxes lower than all of their surrounding states to attract people from other states to buy them there. Smart.

No seatbelt or helmet laws in NH. I'm fine with that (even though I use both). About the only thing I don't like is the no car insurance law they have. But then again in Texas we have 25% of the drivers on the roads with no insurance. So what's the difference?

It is colder than TX though.

An interesting thing about NH is that you can run under multiple parties. Want to run for election as a Republican-Democrat? Or a Libertarian-Democrat? Feel free to. At least this way you don't get people voting simply for party lines without researching their candidate's stance on the issues.

[scandal 951]

Libertarians are the only party that actively eliminates or reduces taxes while at the same time cuts spending and gets rid of government waste.

That's quite a feat, considering that there has never been a Libertarian sitting in an Executive chair (President, Governor) and able to enact any legislation.

It's fine to sit as a permanent outside agitating force and carp about how you would do things. It's another thing to actually govern. Libertarianism, in the USA at least, is a lot of hot air.

[Texanadian 10]

That's quite a feat, considering that there has never been a Libertarian sitting in an Executive chair (President, Governor) and able to enact any legislation.

It's fine to sit as a permanent outside agitating force and carp about how you would do things. It's another thing to actually govern. Libertarianism, in the USA at least, is a lot of hot air.

Ron Paul while technically a Republican is a Libertarian in the true sense of the word. Heck, he ran for president in 1988 under the Libertarian party. Here's a guy who when congress votes themselves a raise, rather than take the money, he sends it back to the treasury. He turned down the big money congressional pension plan. He has the nickname "Dr No" in congress. Heck, he even voted against Federal money being spent in his own county for Hurricane Ike damages. (I agree with him. This is something Texans should pay for. Not people living in the other 49 states. Why should people in Minnesota pay for hurricane damage in the south?)

I'd count Jeff Flake in Arizona in the same category. Zero earmarks. Votes no all the time on spending bills.

New Hampshire elects libertarians into office. And even their non-LP members in power are still quite libertarian.

[Texanadian 10]

Massachusetts on the other hand, they just don't get it. They wanted NH tire stores to collect MA sales tax on MA residents who were driving into NH to buy tires. And then send it to the MA government. People and capital easily move to lower taxed areas. That's why you see lots of Californians moving to Texas. But very little in the opposite direction.

Massachusetts residents had the chance to vote out their state income tax last year. They voted 70% to keep it. Bizarre. The pro-tax people made it sound like the end of the world would happen without state income tax. But 9 states currently don't them and they do fine. In fact they do better than the states that do.

Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington State, and Wyoming don't have state income taxes.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

California is a hotbed of technology and biotech innovation. Texas, not so much. The people leaving Cali for Texas are the rejects of the new economy, the people who can't make it and need to go someplace where their weak money goes farther.

[Niels Bohr 72]

To tell you the truth, NH is like the boonies. I've been there multiple times driving to visit Elaconia Lake and White Mountain. The only really busy area are the outlet malls location. Heck, the University of New Hampshire looks silent like a ghost town.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Niels Bohr

[NickD 203]

One country, 50 different states, the only control on state taxes is losing business to another state with lower taxes, but that is if you are a corporation. If they can't and won't nail the corporation, have to nail the individual, but that corporation does offer jobs to make the state attractive to live in. Iowa is beginning to realize that by not growing their own food, state bucks are being shipped out to buy it. Wisconsin is trying to make gasoline out of corn but drastically increasing the price in food by doing so.

Leaving a state for a better job or lower taxes, if you have a long family history in your state, separates you from your family, in particular, your grandkids if you have them. Wisconsin use to be one of the lowest taxed states in the union, that has sure changed. Feel all those organized crime guys the FBI got rid of are now running our government.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Check out Libertarians. My guess is, from what little I have read of your posts, you are most closely related in policy to Libertarians. Most people are, by the way.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

My suggestion: determine whether the state you live in has closed or open primaries.

If it has closed primaries, it's important that you register with the party for which you want to make a choice in the primaries, since in such a state only registered Republicans can vote in Republican primaries, and similarly for Democrats.

If you live in an open primary state, it really doesn't matter how you register (unless you plan to get very active in politics). You can vote in either party primary regardless of registration, and in fact you can be an unregistered voter and still vote in a primary of your choice.

Inevitably, you won't agree with 100% of the issues espoused by either party, or by any candidate. That's the nature of the political system. The idea is to find a party that most generally aligns with your perspective on the issues. Also, by all means feel free to vote against a candidate of your party in a general election regardless of how you register. I'm a registered Democrat but have voted Republican in races where I felt the GOP was running the better person.

My suggestion is if you are not a citizen, do not register to vote, it is illegal. You can cheer for whatever team you want but you cannot play until you are a citizen.

Some local elections allow permanent residents to vote, but any national elections requiring regsitration do not.

[FortLaudy 10]

My suggestion is if you are not a citizen, do not register to vote, it is illegal. You can cheer for whatever team you want but you cannot play until you are a citizen.

Some local elections allow permanent residents to vote, but any national elections requiring regsitration do not.

I'm aware of that of course Gary, just thought it was interesting that I was labelled as a Republican here on VJ, and wondered why and how do new immigrants decide which party they are more drawn to.

[Peikko 1,575]

Independent all the way, don't let yourself be confined and defined by some political party unless you want to seek office because these are far to narrow straight jackets for the majority of people. When it comes time to vote, take the time to read any material that is brought out by the respective candidates. The ONLY thing you can do is vote on what a candidate proposes to do. Voting on some 'feeling' that you might like to go for a drink with/hang out with the elected representative is ####### eyed, as is trying to decipher a politician's moral compass. No one has the time/resources to make a competent evaluation of every candidate. The proposals for what they intend to do are important, it gives you something by which to measure their success/failure during their time in office. It is this measuring and monitoring of the actual work a politician does/does not do (not all the propaganda ####### about their moral rectitude and whether or not they are sufficiently 'liberal' or 'conservative') that determines the success or failure of any political system. The voter's responsibility does not start and end with the ballot box.

[britbird 4]

Independent.

Don't like putting myself in a box - there are so many different political issues that I find it incredible that people rigidly stick to describing themselves as 'conservatives' and 'liberals' for all things.

[Danno 1,228]

Independent all the way, don't let yourself be confined and defined by some political party unless you want to seek office because these are far to narrow straight jackets for the majority of people. When it comes time to vote, take the time to read any material that is brought out by the respective candidates. The ONLY thing you can do is vote on what a candidate proposes to do. Voting on some 'feeling' that you might like to go for a drink with/hang out with the elected representative is ####### eyed, as is trying to decipher a politician's moral compass. No one has the time/resources to make a competent evaluation of every candidate. The proposals for what they intend to do are important, it gives you something by which to measure their success/failure during their time in office. It is this measuring and monitoring of the actual work a politician does/does not do (not all the propaganda ####### about their moral rectitude and whether or not they are sufficiently 'liberal' or 'conservative') that determines the success or failure of any political system. The voter's responsibility does not start and end with the ballot box.

This has to be BS quote of the day.

MC I'd like to hear a few of your "independent" points where you just can't vote Democrat?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I generally would agree with the rest of what you wrote, but not this bit about weasels.

Sure, we all like to deride our politicians, it's great sport. But there's another name for them - public servants. Those who we have hired to do our bidding on our behalf. Many of them enter politics out of nothing other than personal greed and ambition, I'm not blind to that. And many who enter for noble causes become nothing but greedy and self serving. But that doesn't change the fact that many enter public service to do good, and remain in public service continuing to do good throughout their careers. This is true for members of both parties.

Part of what I personally find so disheartening in VJ discussions of politics is this view that ALL government is bad, ALL politicians are vile and corrupt. There is precious little advocacy for the view that government can be a force for good, and that many of our elected officials really do want to improve things and fight on behalf of their constituents.

Excellent post.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Check out Libertarians. My guess is, from what little I have read of your posts, you are most closely related in policy to Libertarians. Most people are, by the way.

Libertarians are as whacked as the communist...both believing in some form of social utopia that will never exist.