Being new in the town, and having in the past been active when it came to politics, I joined the town’s Democratic Town Committee to both meet like minded people, and continue my involvement in politics.

The Committee met each month, and was involved in such actions as stand-outs, canvassing, fund raising, and phone banks.

Before the scheduled and advertised day of the caucus to choose delegates to the state convention, those of us who were committee members and regular attendees were assigned tasks to make the proceedings go smoothly. Two were to help people sign in, two were to count the ballots, two were to hand out blank paper to use as secret ballots at the beginning of each round of voting, and one was to list the potential delegates on a chalk board as the nominations were made.

All the registered Democrats in the town who had done so before the cut-off date were able to attend the caucus, and each was listed by street address on the forms that we had, and as the people entered they merely had to tell us their street address, and we would find their names and check them off.

However, upon entering, a group of about 6 people who had arrived together, one of whom had only recently registered and after the cut of date making her ineligible to participate in the caucus, grabbed the address lists off the table and rifled though them to find their names, handing the papers back out of alphabetical order which greatly interfered with the smooth sign in procedure.

After the confusion caused by this was rectified and the caucus began, the committee chair read the steps that would be followed for nominations and voting, and nominations were then opened for female delegates.

Once the ballots were collected and given to the two people who were to count them, one of the people who had caused the confusion with the address lists as people entered rushed to the counting table and, grabbing the ballots, announced that she would supervise the count to insure we were not making a false count.

Those of us assigned the job of counting ballots had decided to count them three times to help eliminate any mistakes, but when this person who kept the ballots away from us only telling us who had gotten how many votes  finished her tally, she was happy to announce that she had been elected.

However, when she then relinquished the ballots and they could be counted two more times, she fell far short of winning.

This did not go well with her, and while she was ranting about voter fraud, nominations and the vote on the male delegates were held.

Although she stopped ranting long enough for the nominations so she could nominate her husband, she returned to it during the actual voting.

The male ballots were collected and turned into the counters, and as we began the count, she realized she had not voted, even though the collection of ballots had been announced twice, and it was obvious members of the committee had been going around the room collecting them. She also got very upset to find that the two official counters had taken the time to vote.

Her new rant about her not knowing we were voting on the male nominees kept her away from the ballots so the counting process went smoother the second time.

When her husband fell short of selection she began complaining that the voting had been a fraud as she had not voted, and she demanded a second vote. But the process was not fraudulent; she had just not been paying attention because of her ranting.

Her husband also began making accusations of voter fraud because it was obvious to him that people had voted for people they knew.

He also objected because, in violation of the rules at the time and according to him, one person who had been nominated and elected was not even present. That person, however, was me, and I was sitting at the vote counting table right behind him, and, had he attended meetings and been an active member of the committee, he would have known me and that I was the committee’s sergeant at arms and a member of its executive board.

While his wife continued her demand for a second vote, her husband announced he was going to write a letter to the state committee reporting what he and his wife considered a fraudulent procedure.

It was explained to them that results not being what they had hoped for was not a reason for a second vote as the lack of her casting a ballot was his wife’s fault, not that of the caucus, and her claim that it was never made clear that we were casting our ballot for the male delegate was provably false as the people sitting near her had voted.

What had happened, clearly, was that from the moment they had entered and caused confusion at the sign in table and then attempted to influence the ballot count, they were hoping to bully their way into running the meeting according to their own design and guaranteeing that they would be elected, but when that did not happen, they decided to file a complaint they thought would result in the state committee giving into them and nullifying the vote.

Other people in attendance were surprised at the husband and wife’s reaction to their not getting elected, and when one woman pointed out the process had been fair, clear, and open, the husband ran at her with his fist raised, stopping just short of striking her.

Available as kamagra soft tabs, kamagra jellies and kamagra tablets, one’s usage may completely depend generic viagra without prescription on the requirement and health, or otherwise 100mg Kamagra works well to give erection. While it isn’t prevalent, among the possible causes of levitra india price ED and its most suitable treatment, Kamagra. Meds like Yashtimadhuk, Vish-Tinduk-Vati, Bruhat-Vat-Chintamani, Tapyadi-Loh, Abhrak-Bhasma, Trivang-Bhasma and Suvarna-Bhasma can be given on a long haul premise to realize most extreme recuperation from this sickness and tadalafil best prices avoid repeat. The muscles thus work with better performance in time of price tadalafil tablets need. People stood staring as he continued his unfounded accusations, and his wife continued to demand a second ballot so she could vote this time. As the vote count showed, her husband was one vote short of tying the person who was elected to the fifth male delegate position, and had she voted for him the resulting tie would have called for a run-off vote that he could have possibly won.

In response to his repeatedly announcing he would file a complaint, the committee chair informed him that he would be within his rights to do so, but part of the process would be for others to respond to it.

Either these two people and their friends who acted as they did as far as the complaining went, were unaware that caucuses have procedures that must be followed, and not only had they been read by the chair, but the husband had actually attempted to stop his reading  of them, or they were hoping to steamroll over the proceedings to get what they wanted.

Twice as the committee chair was reading the procedures, something he was required to do, much like a teacher is required to read the directions to standardized tests aloud,  the husband had yelled at the committee chair to be quiet and just get to the voting, and once at least demanded he approach things a different way.

The confusion they caused at the sign in table and the wife’s attempt to interfere with the ballot count may have also been either through crass ignorance of procedures or a conscious attempt at control.

Their response to not getting what they wanted may have not only been the result of not getting elected, but could have been caused by their frustration with having failed at controlling the meeting and the people in attendance in spite of their best efforts.

This took place during a gubernatorial election year.

There were four Democrats vying for nomination with three holding or having held public office with the fourth being a classic “outsider”.

I attended as many candidate forums as I could so that I could to get an idea of where and for what each stood, and I found the fourth person to be a little refreshing as his ideas were not party line ideas. He was articulate and very polished. His ideas were sound.

However, what I perceived as a negative in his campaign was that as enthusiastic as his young supporters were, they were also rather rude to anyone who may not be supporting the candidate, and rather than taking the time to explain why he should be supported and what he stood for in comparison to the others, their consistent response to any questions, doubts, or mention of supporting one of the other candidates was to berate the person to whom they were speaking becoming rather insulting toward them.

As a result, they were doing more damage to their candidate than good.

I spoke to one of the candidate’s campaign workers at one gathering about the negative affect the boorish and bullying behavior was actually having, but was informed that they were merely enthusiastic for change, and being myself part of the problem, I had to accept that I was one reason for their approach.

Of course, having never spoken to this person before, and not wearing any hello-my-name-is tag, I had no idea how this person could have dismissed me as merely a part of a problem while having no idea who I was or what my political experience might have been.

As it was to turn out, the people who had attempted to disrupt the caucus meeting were supporters of this candidate, and over time I was to find that the display like the one at my town’s committee meeting had been a common occurrence at others.

I understand the desire to have one’s candidate win, and to do that the supporters need to be in a position to promote him to the largest number of people possible, in this case the state convention, but attempting to do so through disruption was, in this case anyway, not the best approach.

I am not saying that the process is without flaws, but they should be remedied with reason as opposed bullying.

I was not anointed to any political position, but worked for many years from youth to old age to prove myself and gain credibility locally and nationally, and what change I saw that needed to be made I attempted to bring about from within even if it the attempt produced difficulty for me. Persistence and performance produced results.

But to simply decide change was necessary and just plowing my way through others who had worked hard to get to their positions, and leaving bodies in my wake, would have been showy, but counterproductive.

I see that happening now as people demand change within both political parties, but do not take the time to study either one enough to know what really needs to be changed or how it can come about effectively, but merely work on the theory that he who yells loudest is the winner.

I am not saying posterior kissing is the way to go, but crotch kicking definitely isn’t.

You do not win allies with the latter.