JP>-> Seems to me I got a letter, out of the blue, from the NRA
JP>-> containing yet *another* thing to vote on.  Only this time it was
JP>-> a bunch of peoples names who I knew absolutely nothing about, had
JP>-> never heard of, and didn't know what they would be doing.
JP>-> In that light, 5.9% seems about 5.9% too high.  I don't vote for
JP>-> or against people that I don't even know.  Just like I don't
JP>-> blindly sign petitions.
JP>Well, I agree, Nolan.  I'm sure Ernie is open to suggestions on ways
JP>to improve upon this.  Any ideas?
As a matter of fact, I can think of a few.
I don't remember seeing anything in the magazines prior to the election
that made it clear that (a) there was an election, (b) these are the
people running (c) I would be voting, and (d) this is where and how they
stand on things.
Now some of this, heck all of this, may well have been in the magazines.
But if it was, it was in such a way that it wasn't clear to me.  And I'm
a pretty good reader of the hunting magazine.
When I got the ballot (if it's the one I'm thinking of), it came in the
standard hysterical type envelope (we *need* your help, send money,
etc), complete with lots of garbage inside.  Not offers for plates, but
congratulations for things I didn't do, applications for memberships,
and the implied if you don't pay your vote doesn't count form.
Nothing to make it stand out to me as a truly special vote, and nothing
about or from the various people running.  I think I did figure out what
it was, but didn't have a clue where the people running stood.
I think making it clearer that there is an election, that as a member I
would vote, and this is who and what the people are would have helped.
---
* CMPQwk #1.4* UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
--- InterEcho 1.18
---------------