Bill Bishop Campaign Requests Apology

[Charles Hunter]

The Duval School Board elections are non-partisan.

[Rob68]

I hope everyone remembers that it was the rules ideas and actions of the republican party and their so called morals that caused one of the worst econmic downfall in American historty and these men still support such ideas and actions...the republicans have nothing but racism and the ending of anything public...shame on anyone voting republican...remember what they did to us all...without shame

[Jtetlak]

@Redbaron616, I disagree with people who strictly vote based on party. Usually it's for or against a particular party, but to dismiss either of those choices on principal alone is just as reckless IMO. Particularly with regard to local elections where people like myself are running who have very little affiliation with either party.

Speaking to the issue of non-partisan elections, locally I think it is a great idea. I've personally had people who I am certain share my ideals close their door in my face based entirely on party affiliation. There are people from both parties who I support, and people from both parties who I think aren't cut out for the offices they are seeking, but until we can start talking issues rather than party lines, nothing will get ever get done.

[vicupstate]

@Redbaron616, I disagree with people who strictly vote based on party. Usually it's for or against a particular party, but to dismiss either of those choices on principal alone is just as reckless IMO. Particularly with regard to local elections where people like myself are running who have very little affiliation with either party.

Speaking to the issue of non-partisan elections, locally I think it is a great idea. I've personally had people who I am certain share my ideals close their door in my face based entirely on party affiliation. There are people from both parties who I support, and people from both parties who I think aren't cut out for the offices they are seeking, but until we can start talking issues rather than party lines, nothing will get ever get done.

Thank you.  I realize it saves time and effort to simply use 'labels' instead of brain cells, but it sure makes for lousy government.   

[Jessicapants]

@Redbaron616, I disagree with people who strictly vote based on party. Usually it's for or against a particular party, but to dismiss either of those choices on principal alone is just as reckless IMO. Particularly with regard to local elections where people like myself are running who have very little affiliation with either party.

Speaking to the issue of non-partisan elections, locally I think it is a great idea. I've personally had people who I am certain share my ideals close their door in my face based entirely on party affiliation. There are people from both parties who I support, and people from both parties who I think aren't cut out for the offices they are seeking, but until we can start talking issues rather than party lines, nothing will get ever get done.

Generally, I agree with the sentiment you expressed here, Jtetlak. In fact, I agree with it so much that I am one of those voters who has no party affiliation because I don't want the political parties to tell me who to vote for. (Yes, I do vote. I'm a Public Administration major, for crying out loud!)

However, at this point in time, I have a VERY hard time overlooking a Republican party affiliation in a political candidate because the party's platform seeks to deny basic human rights to women and the LGBT community. Now, I know that there are people in the Republican party who do not agree with the party on these issues, but they agree with the party on other issues that are more important to them, so they maintain affiliation. For me, human rights is the most important issue there is, and I'm not willing to overlook politicians' actions on this, regardless of party affiliation. The same goes for the parties themselves.

In other words, it's a deal breaker for me. Because human rights issues are so important to me, I don't feel that I can truly trust or respect a candidate that is willing to disavow the Republican party's position on human rights while at the same time seeking support and endorsement from that same party. It just doesn't sit well with me because it makes me feel like human rights are not truly important to that candidate.

So, that has resulted in me voting for many Democrats through the years even though I didn't really like them either. But the ones I voted for were the lesser of the two evils, so I went with it.

I think that the 2 party system is hurting our country because it is so polarizing. I would much prefer to not have to consider party politics when I consider a candidate. While ultimately I decide who to vote for after doing research about the candidates and their positions on the issues, I now consider their political party as a wild card position as well. If I like both candidates equally and one is a Republican and the other one isn't, I go with the non-Republican every time.

Maybe if the Republican party decides to start treating women and LGBT individuals as people entitled to full human rights in their platform, I may change my position on this. Until then, not a chance.

[Jimmy]

Jessica, I just want to point out to you that when we tried to update our local human rights ordinance to include support for the LGBT community in Jacksonville, in 2012, local Democrats had a lot to do with the loss.  (So did some of the Republicans, don't get me wrong.  But as a Democrat myself, it cut me to the bone when so-called Democrats like Kimberly Daniels, Reggie Brown, and Johnny Gaffney voted against human rights.  And don't get me started on the actions and inaction the Mayor, also a purported Democrat.)

It was thanks to the Republican Council President at the time, Bill Bishop, that we got an up or down vote at all.  To say nothing of the work of Republicans like John Delaney and Audrey Moran and so many of the Civic Council and Chamber types.

Point simply being: party labels are a pretty lousy barometer of how local leaders feel about social issues. 

[Jtetlak]

Well put @jessicpants. Personally, ensuring LGBT rights is the reason I got into this race. It's not the only thing about Jacksonville I want to make better, but it is the catalyst for getting me to run.

I understand your distrust of the two party system as well, and the worst part about it is that it almost requires anyone interested in running for office to choose a side. Having a non-partisan election would help focus attention on the issues that each candidate stands for rather than on who is in what party. Which would eliminate us electing what Jimmy points out are people who end up not standing up issues for what we thought they supported based on their party allegiance alone.

[Jessicapants]

Jessica, I just want to point out to you that when we tried to update our local human rights ordinance to include support for the LGBT community in Jacksonville, in 2012, local Democrats had a lot to do with the loss.  (So did some of the Republicans, don't get me wrong.  But as a Democrat myself, it cut me to the bone when so-called Democrats like Kimberly Daniels, Reggie Brown, and Johnny Gaffney voted against human rights.  And don't get me started on the actions and inaction the Mayor, also a purported Democrat.)

It was thanks to the Republican Council President at the time, Bill Bishop, that we got an up or down vote at all.  To say nothing of the work of Republicans like John Delaney and Audrey Moran and so many of the Civic Council and Chamber types.

Point simply being: party labels are a pretty lousy barometer of how local leaders feel about social issues.

Jimmy, I am very aware of the poor record that local Democrats have regarding the Human Rights Ordinance, which is why I said that I judge all politicians individually as well as the parties themselves for their respective actions. I agree that some of their behavior has been a betrayal to the community, to say the least. It sucks.

I also recognize that there are Republicans that act in opposition to their party with regard to human rights issues, and I'm glad that they do. Good for them. I would be more glad if they lobbied as hard within their own party to champion human rights as they do outside of it.

Like I said before, I treat political parties as "wild card" factors when it comes to picking who to vote for. Which means that I rarely have to rely on party politics at all to make my choice. Usually, my mind is made up well before the question of political party affiliation comes up. But when I do have to rely on party politics to make a choice, I refuse to support a candidate that is running on a platform from a political party that is in favor of legislation that deprives more than half the population full human rights.   

[Jimmy]

As a gay democratic feminist, I certainly appreciate your perspective and your practices.

[-jerrycornwell]

We could remove party affiliations from the official ballots. It may have an impact on elections things turn out.

As for term limits, there are positives and minuses. The biggest minus is that the people with experience get cycled out after a few years. And too often, these are incompetent do-nothing ribbon-cutters. Like we've got now.

You can't remove party affiliations from the ballots. Thats what Lenin Trotsky Mussolini Hitler Castro did. Taking politics out for "leadership".
For term limits, the positives is the incumbent can do whatever he (politically) wants because of no fear of (political) consequences. For a Democrat looking to further his career, pushing feverently for a HRO legislation is ESSENTIAL for a job in DC. Especially when the future POTUS is standing beside you in March giving her glowing endorsement!

On my post here, I was obviously wrong. All posters were correct that, indeed, many ballots today there are no political affliations on elected offices that have no political impact. Accordingly, I stand corrected.

[Gamblor]

We could remove party affiliations from the official ballots. It may have an impact on elections things turn out.

As for term limits, there are positives and minuses. The biggest minus is that the people with experience get cycled out after a few years. And too often, these are incompetent do-nothing ribbon-cutters. Like we've got now.

You can't remove party affiliations from the ballots. Thats what Lenin Trotsky Mussolini Hitler Castro did. Taking politics out for "leadership".
For term limits, the positives is the incumbent can do whatever he (politically) wants because of no fear of (political) consequences. For a Democrat looking to further his career, pushing feverently for a HRO legislation is ESSENTIAL for a job in DC. Especially when the future POTUS is standing beside you in March giving her glowing endorsement!

On my post here, I was obviously wrong. All posters were correct that, indeed, many ballots today there are no political affliations on elected offices that have no political impact. Accordingly, I stand corrected.