Let me be the first...I will attempt to answer the plethora of questions one at a time.....once I wade through. Keep in mind in the future the short attention span of the populace Jim. This may be too much to handle in one blogburst.
I think I got a 'D' in Elementary Statistics but I do think of the almost 150 comments or posts to your last blog, there were maybe 6 or 8 different respondents....not a large sample and not all of them self described 'unenrolled'. Hence, how do you jump to "If unenrolled voters claim to vote for the “best candidate,” as a number of respondents confirmed last week, does that mean that they actually almost always believe that the overwhelming majority of Democrat candidates have been “the best candidate?” … For sixty years? Doesn’t this defy statistical probability?" ....continued ...

continued.......How do you know factually that most unenrolled vote Democratic? or maybe don't vote at all.......Is your sampling of Westborough respondents statistically significant? I hope the Democratic voting trends in Mass is not a robotic vote for Democrats, but Massachusetts does claim to have a high number of well educated and thoughtful persons. Maybe they do think that the Democrats have the better philosophy? Having said that, I would like to see a more balanced representation in our state government so minimally there can be a more even discussion of the issues and points of view and some real dialogue. I can see myself voting for a Republican candidate if he or she was able to espouse a way of cutting back on government intrusion and deficit spending without bashing those in legitimate need of government assistance, fiscally and educationally.

Jim, it may be that voters are simply focusing on the wrong issues. We hear a lot about the hot button social and fiscal issues that tend to divide people into Conservative, Liberal and Moderate voters, but we rarely hear about the issues of government inefficiency, corruption and patronage. Sometimes, I think our elected officials want it that way - they can focus on hot button issues to get elected, then use the power of their elective offices to enrich themselves and their friends while nobody's watching.

But, even when people try to change things, the concentration of political power in Massachusetts makes it almost impossible. There was a perfect example last election when Mary Connaughton, a certified auditor, ran for State Auditor and won almost every town in the State, yet the political machine in Boston came out at the last minute to drag enough "D" voters to the polls to elect a career Democratic politician, Suzanne Bump, even though she had an issue with not paying her own taxes in the past. And the results have been predictable - instead of an independent Auditor really chasing down waste, fraud and abuse, we have another career politician who mostly looks the other way.

So, I would suggest that the "divide and conquer" strategy really works. Distract the voters by focusing on divisive issues instead of trying to have the best Government we can.

There was a goo

Thanks for adding a good point SAT, but this is what I mean when I say there needs to be an end to voter malpractice if we really want a meaningful change in political direction. And, by the way, how do you feel about the Connaughton race knowing that over 50% of the voters were registered Unenrolled? If they voted, a lot of them felt that Bump was the "best candidate". If they did not vote, they allowed the Democrats to be the de facto majority. Do you see what I mean?

I see what you mean, Jim. Connaughton would've been elected if more Unenrolled voted for the "best qualified" candidate. The fact that Bump won means that, despite their claims of voting for the best candidate, there are a lot of Unenrolled who just vote along "D" party lines.

Personal integrity may be the precise reason voters remain unenrolled. I prefer the option to vote for the person, given the choices, that I believe will be best able to execute in role. I prefer not to align with a group "...whose integrity and personal values have been, to be kind, embarrassing, if not contemptible - even criminal" or the other group that tries to advance their position by pointing that out, ingnoring the fact that they are the only party to have a sitting President resign because of corruption at the highest levels of government.

As one of those unenrolled voters, who votes in every election, I don't vote along the "D" (or the "R", for that matter) line. There is never a "perfect" candidate, so I have to go with the one who agrees with most of my principals, and I try to find the ones who say they agree with most of the issues I care the most about. It involves a very complex mathematical formula (minus three for disagreeing with this one, plus two for this, couldn't care one way or the other about that, plus 5 for this...etc.) That way, the best candidate (for me) gets my vote. I wish everyone had a rating system, but I realize the cutest, or the one with the best smile and least mud flung at him/her, is usually the one left standing.

Interesting you call Nixon dumb, he opened the door to China and more importantly ended the Vietnam War. How about Agnew? How about the former Governor of CT? . It doesn't take much to come up with a comparable list of Republicans that have committed offenses, so why even go there? Although I vote Republican more often than Democrat, I don't enroll with either party because of narrow minded thinkers who don't understand or respect that others can have a different opinion.

I’m sure I'll regret responding, and yet the question of unenrolled voters is such an interesting one. Though here, we have nine separate questions. Among these, I find the second to be the most telling—both in its phrasing, and in the answers it suggests. In fact, it seems crucial to an understanding of the premise upon which partisan politics are ultimately based. In short, when the writer asks, “would Republicans be better off expressing more conservative positions than just behaving like moderate Democrats?”—isn’t the natural, “unenrolled” response that Republicans AND Democrats and anyone with ideas who makes a bid for public office, should express what they actually believe, and they should behave well, and in a way that illustrates the principles and positions they claim to hold? This seems to me the basic reason to remain, or to become—or, despite any official affiliation, to BE-- independent (and there’s no logo! You escape all that nonsense!).

The other questions here are not really questions at all, but rather the partisan advertising one has come to expect. (I couldn’t care less about Romney at 15; but new information from his adult career is discovered every day… And as one commenter already pointed out, political corruption is historically bi-partisan at every level—something that Republicans and Democrats have always shared pretty equally.) But that question, of expressing and behaving—that really has me thinking.
Independently.

Jim- my advice to you is to tighten up your blog- you are all over the place with this-much less focused than your first column. Once again Independent/unenrolled voters like the option to vote in any primary they wish too. If these voters vote heavily in a Republican Primary they can control it- Bill Weld won the Republican Primary that way in 1990. In Mass. the Democrats have run the show in the Legislature since the 1950's and that time in power can lead to corruption -just look at the Probation Dept scandal and the three recent Democrat Speakers indicted and one in jail ! I have served as Republican Party Treasurer, Interim Chair, State Committeeman and current Town Chair and I 've seen a lot in my 45 years as a Republican- a lot of craziness on both sides. The pool of unenrolled voters contains a much higher percentage of Republican 'leaners' who elected Weld, Cellucci, and Romney along with Scott Brown. It's our job to persuade them to vote Republican. That's a tough job in Mass with public employee unions and other union forces spending millions of dollars on political lobbying,but it can be done.

David, thanks for this and your interesting points. Let me surprise you on my second point ... that was an honest and legitimate question. To me, too many Republicans attempt to be Democrat light so they go along with social positions because they are afraid of irritating voters. However, my analysis is that Democrats are typically unlikely to vote for Republicans anyway, so why can't legitimate Republicans emerge who have a more conservative position on the social issues - and are not afraid to posit them loud and clear (or just avoind hem altogether because they are too weak-kneed to offer the altenative to the right to choose et als)? Are Independents waiting for this kind of candidate? I am thinking that they are, after all, the Catholic Church is pretty conservative and who is speaking for them these days.

As to corruption, my response to that commenter is that I was talking about Massachusetts and this is a one-way deal ... if by default, if nothing else.

Thanks again, and I am hoping no regrets for doing so.

I have a clarifying question: are we talking about ALL registered voters in Massachusetts or JUST the ones that actually vote? Just because I'm registered doesn't mean I'll vote - is a record kept of how each person who actually votes is registered?

Answers from a Democrat:

1. Yes, almost all the time, the Democrat is better. There are a few exceptions. I voted for Bill Weld, not John Silber.

2. I see many Republican candidates who are socially conservative and stick to their positions, but in most districts that's not popular. Of course, Mitt Romney's pro-choice positioning has turned out to have been insincere.

3. There are more conservative Democrats in Massachusetts, e.g. Steven Lynch. But for the most part, people who can't tell the difference between Rs and Ds isn't really paying attention.

4. Corruption bothers all of us, and the Speakership has been a black eye.

5. Despite the nonsensical propaganda of talk radio and the Herald, Elizabeth Warren is a person of great integrity. At worst, she has been sincerely mistaken. If a Democrat had made the fairy tale claim that he spoke regularly with kings and queens, you'd be all over him. Instead, *crickets*. Doesn't Scott Brown's puffery bother you?

6. Huh? Deval Patrick had been Assistant AG for Civil Rights, and he was a great candidate who got steadily better. Warren is also an excellent candidate from outside the usual party circles. Usually, you'd like that, but she's a nationally known threat to the Republican majority you'd like to see in the U.S. Senate with a history of accomplishing hard tasks.

Continued...

7. You probably don't realize it, but Massachusetts state and local taxes are below the national average as a percent of income. You probably don't realize it, but Federal taxes are also low, compared to recent history. Furthermore, marginal tax rates are very very low at the high end. There's barely any progressivity left in the Federal tax code after 30 years of the very wealthy buying favors. (That, by the way, is a far more corrosive corruption, and it has been bipartisan.) When I say the very wealthy, by the way, I'm talking about the 0.001%, not the 1%.

8. I know zero about Mitt Romney at age 15, nor do I need to know about the teen Willard. On the other hand, I've heard about President Obama's childhood and adulthood - and birthplace - in incredible detail. Heck, he has two published autobiographies. If you don't know about him, you're not paying attention.

9. Elephants are highly intelligent. Too bad the Tea Party Republicans have taken over the GOP and rendered it fully the party that denies any truth that it merely doesn't like - Keynesian economics, global warming, evolution, you name it.

Donkeys are stubborn but also smart. How did we become the only party that will compromise? With Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell (plus Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist) running the GOP, there's nothing left to compromise on. Obamacare was a Republican proposal in 1994, yet your party went incredibly nutty over it.

Last...

I really miss the days when Republicans made sense, as many traditional New England Republican voters still do. I disagreed with them then, but they were operating in reality, rather than the Michele Bachmann Tea Party fantasy land.

David, your last note was well said. Thank you.

But as you've basically shown, Jim, although The Commonwealth officially has the same two-party system as the rest of the country (and even, technically, the same two-party government; otherwise, how can we explain the elections of a Weld or a Cellucci or a Romney or a Scott Brown?), it's the third party--the independents or "unenrolled", who are really no party at all--who turn out to be the biggest group. Even if that group includes a lot of non-voters. And so it seems fair to interpret the fact that a significant (THE significant) number of unenrolled voters vote for Democrats, as a very real message backing up much of what Kelly said. In other words, the longstanding Democratic dominance of Commonwealth politics isn't necessarily a sign of apathy or inertia; it is more likely a precise reflection of the progressive tendencies of a group that is nevertheless never to be taken for granted. That is part of a very long tradition in Massachusetts. And that seems like a great thing to me.

Jim and David- one of the points not mentioned is the steep decline in the percentage of registered Democrats in the last two decades-it's actually larger that the total percent of Republicans- a lot has to do with many New Deal Dems passing on and the next generation having a different perspective on local and state issues. We are at a point where the party matters less than the person.

Can anyone explain why party registration is listed on the ballot list when you vote? Seems an unnecessary piece of information to determine if a person has a right to cast a ballot.

Mickey, thanks - understandable during a primary however not necessary for a general election. Jim - you keep missing the point that people are unenrolled because they're not happy with either option. You are making an assumption that there are only two choices, Republican or Democrat. The unenrolled message is if you want my vote, you need to earn it. Gone are they days of blind allegiance to a brand whether it's politics or automobiles. A strategy based on Republicans are better than Democrats because they have fewer convictions isn't changing anyones mind. I wouldn't affiliate with a political party any sooner than I would commit to buying cars from one company. You want the business, do something to earn it beside whining about how nobody is paying attention.

Arthur, thanks for this but with all due respect I do not think I am missing my own point. In 2012 "earning" your vote has become little more than offering "free stuff" to whatever so-called victim's group or even wannabe victim's group is in front of the candidate. Earning your vote has become as disingenuous as saying one thing, doing another, then later telling the voters that they are not bright enough to understand what they were saying.

My original proposition was that it is great if you are one of the so-called Independent voters who actually reads and makes informed choices ... very noble in fact. However, you need to understand how the Party system works before thinking that - with few exceptions - your so-called "best candidate" is ever going to do much more that vote the way they are told by the Party leadership.

Hopefully you do not think that I am whining as much as warning and wanting Unenrolled voters to lose their apathy and get into the process of electing a government that is significantly better than we have been experiencing. Does this make my point clearer for you? Thanks again - love the posts.

Jim, I'm a registered Republican (still upset that Charlie Baker lost) but I always try to vote for the best person and not the best party! I think people are just disenfranchised with politics in general. I know I honestly don't feel that my vote does a lot of good!

@Jim - with all due respect (and I'm not being sarcastic) - I feel as if you're insulting the so-called (and that does come across as condescending) independent voters by saying you'd like us to lose our apathy. The unenrolled voters I know, including myself, are not apathetic. A few of us have posted here, but you continue to label us in that way. No matter what any of us say, you have your viewpoint and will apparently continue to ignore our obvious LACK of apathy. Good luck with whatever it is you are trying to accomplish - I do hope you find someone who will prove your point, but it doesn't seem like it's going to be here. All the best to you.

Amy, thanks for posting, and I understand. My response to you is the same that I gave to David earlier and Kim just a few minutes ago. I might also add that I particularly enjoy disagreements. As I said at several times last week, none of us learns anything if everyone agrees with what I write. I can get that at my Town Committee meetings. My contribution to the broader electorate, however, is to challenge their thinking. It appears that I am succeeding at some level. Thanks again for speaking up.

For one thing, your turnout numbers are wrong. In 2008, Westborough had 6650 unenrolled voters, 3135 Ds, and 2127 Rs. About 9000 votes were cast for President (75% turnout), so even if all the Ds and Rs voted (highly unlikely), 56% of unenrolled voters voted, not 40%.

In fact, in affluent suburban towns, voter engagement is high. Sure, many voters aren't engaged year round the way you and I are on opposite sides, but they eventually settle on a candidate.

The fact that they're late to decide is why candidates compete for their attention. Besides, you should know that high turnout is good for Democrats.

Why don't Rs win more often? Simply, Massachusetts leads the nation in a huge number of categories.

Forbes puts our quality of life as number 1. First! Despite the weather.

Our public schools are the best in the country, and our population is highly educated. Ed Reform worked. The extra money that Ds wanted to spend (and traditional moderate New England Rs, too)? It worked.

Consequently, we have an innovation economy that leads the country and the world in many areas of software, biotech, water resources, green energy, and pretty much any area that requires entrepreneurship and brainpower. Our unemployment rate is 2 points lower than the nation's, though 4% would be better, and we have high incomes.

Nearly everyone has health insurance.

Crime is low. Families are stable.

Republicans hope this doesn't spread, because our state government works.

Jim - "In 2012 "earning" your vote has become little more than offering "free stuff" to whatever so-called victim's group or even wannabe victim's group is in front of the candidate. Earning your vote has become as disingenuous as saying one thing, doing another, then later telling the voters that they are not bright enough to understand what they were saying."

How is this convincing anyone to become an enrolled voter? Earning my vote is about leadership, putting someone outfront that will drive results and do the right thing v following party instruction. Earning my vote isn't about lip service. This is exactly why people do not become enrolled voters. Essentially your message says that elected roles are puppets to the party management.

Okay, let me start by saying if you were a lawyer, you would be leading the witness. Now I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just saying that the way you pose the questions in the article have a very "This way is good, that way is bad" feel to them. I think there may be a better way to ask to get real answers.

I posted on your other article but I feel as though I need to clarify why I don't personally like either party. Let me start with Democrats. Yes, SOME have been corrupt. I don't like the taxes. I don't like some of the communistic mindsets. I don't like the "Turn a blind eye" mindset to social issues. And I don't like how Democrats preach change and then things stay the same.

Now Republicans:
I don't like their stance on most social issues. I am pro-choice, pro-gay marriage. I don't like some of the religious undertones. I don't believe that the church has any business in my personal, athiest, life. I don't like the way many of the weathier republicans make money. I don't like how some are corrupt.

But really, I don't like how both sides can't get their acts together, stuff their pride, and compromise. We're not going to move foward if we have two out-dated parties that can't give a little. Thats why I am unenrolled.

I am unenrolled, and I've been following this blog for some time. I totally agree with Annie, especially, about 'leading the witness'... that was my first reaction when this started, and I believe the blog was meant to be that way.

Off topic, but today the Senate passed a bill to extent tax cuts for the middle class. It will be interesting to see if the House (read R's) will follow suit.

The R's simply don't care about me.

Jim you are a real sport for keeping the dialogue going- I think Annie hits on a real sub-text among voters and that is the Libertarian streak- not necessarily connected with Ron Paul-- but an aversion to organized religion and to treating big government as religion substitute as many in Mass do.

Here's some more evidence that voting for "the best candidate" doesn't necessarily mean getting the "best government":

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220726conflict_eyed_in_post_for_relative_of_bump/

Jim - if the candidates pander and make empty promises then the party is condoning v forcing more integrity in the candidates. You ask why there are unenrolled voters, why would you align with an organization that openly supports that behaviour? You make many good points but specifically on converting unenrolled voters, there is nothing in the argument to convince unenrolled to enroll. If Republicans are going to be the group that aspires to greatness, then its going to take leadership, integrity and the party needs to follow the candidate, not the other way around.

Annie, I really appreciate your comments and welcome your willingness to spar a bit. However, let me be very up front about all of this. I am identified with a photo and the title of Chair of the Westborough Town Committee. I was asked by the Patch to write a Republican blog to balance things out. It's within this capacity that I am sharing some points of view. My purpose is to persuade those who are on the fence, or at least willing to hear the Republican perspective, that both the Country and this State are headed down the wrong track with the Democrats. Within this context I admit to an ideological bias - even though it is clearly implied through my identification (vs. some sort of nom de plume writing that is aimed at irritating more than dialoging). I hope you find this (and me) reasonable. In the meantime, please keep posting because you are the very person with whom I am seeking to communicate. I hope you share the blogs with your friends as well. All the best.

Steven Pohl – in response to your statement:
"Off topic, but today the Senate passed a bill to extent tax cuts for the middle class. It will be interesting to see if the House (read R's) will follow suit.
The R's simply don't care about me."
I disagree with your characterization that R's don't care about you if they don't vote for extending tax cuts for the middle class (they want the middle class *and* everyone else to keep the tax cuts – they care about everyone!).
If the extension for the middle class is not accompanied by corresponding extension for “the wealthy”, then the wealthy (which includes small business owners, who create 75% of jobs in America) surely will not add jobs to the economy when their taxes go up, and may eliminate more jobs. How does this indicate R’s care for you? They want an economic environment where more jobs are created for people who do not have them, and keep jobs for people who do have one. If you do not want to also extend the tax cuts to the job creators, you are affecting other middle class people because more jobs won’t be created for them to be employed, or possibly even eliminate jobs for other middle class people, even your own job – whomever would lose their job because of this would ironically get no tax savings from an extension of the tax cuts to only the middle class. With all due respect, if you support this, should you be characterized as not caring for the middle class other than yourself?

Great points, FindBalance. Many small businesses earn between $250,000 and $500,000 a year. They will be greatly impacted by not extending the tax cuts to people earning over $250,000. It will cause cutbacks in their staff and inventory and will certainly stifle their growth. It will be a win for no one.

Jim,
As a lifelong MA resident, I was born into a Democrat family and voted "D" robotically for many years. However, during Ronald Reagan's second term, I realized what a good president he was. I also started to notice how negative and condescending NPR (of which I was a daily listener) had become in their reporting of anyone who wasn't a liberal. Additionally, I became increasingly embarrassed by Ted Kennedy's drunken carousing in Washington. I saw the Democrat Party going downhill and no longer representing my ethics and values and decided to leave. I became unenrolled and started voting mostly Republican. I have come full circle and am now a Republican. The Republican Party isn't perfect, but overall, it represents what I believe in as a hard-working American who loves this country.