Gambling in the lakes region?

[Bettina 2]

What are the general thoughts on gambling in this area? Is it increasing (Bingo at Funspot and the table games at the dog track in Belmont)??? Or have these been going on for years with no change in attendance?

Me...personally? I would love to see the Weirs put in a beautiful Mohegan Sun type of casino (assuming our economy recovers, that is).

However, I must confess, I've been coming to the lake area for only 4 years. Although I have had great experiences to last a lifetime, I have no wonderful childhood memories to cherish...nor am I a purist in preserving what used to be.

What is the general opinion of this board? Want to increase gambling with casinos that could generate year-round business, or are you appalled at the mere idea?

Please go gentle with me on your replies . I'm just curious. I have no vote in making any changes to this area whatsoever...the voters in this state (of which I'm not one) would be the ones to decide on that. They keep saying "NO".

[Orion]

There are enough places to go gambling and get all the flashy lights and sounds. It's nice to have places to go to escape all that. Let's try to preserve it as long as we can. Please.

[Irish mist]

Please, lol, keep gambling off of the lakefront. If we must have gambling keep it in one spot, not all over the state. Put it in Salem at exit 1. Build a casino complex with a concert hall & expanded tax free shopping. I don't want to see slot machines all over the state.
________
Angelina jolie nude

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bettina 2

What are the general thoughts on gambling in this area?

I have no vote in making any changes to this area whatsoever...the voters in this state (of which I'm not one) would be the ones to decide on that. They keep saying "NO".

Wonder how long before a poll states that a majority of NH voters are in favor of a casino at the Weirs?

[jrc]

Outside of Nevada and Atlantic City, gambling is usually a point destanation. When you put in Foxwoods/Moheagan Sun type gambling, everything else is second fiddle. Look at those casinos, there are very few other attractions anywhere near them. Not even very many hotels outside the attached one.

If you put one at the dog track, the dog track would quickly find that making money with slot machines is easier than dogs. Same thing with the Weirs. This might be an improvement, but it will destroy what's there.

Personally I think well regulated gambling should be legal throughout the the state. But setting up special gambling locations is a bad idea.

The sillyness of the current gambling laws strikes me every time I go in the arcades on Weirs beach. They have slot machines, but since gambling is illegal, you must lose every time you play. At least with real slot machines, once in a while you win.

The state will let you put $100 in a slot machine to win a $5 stuffed animal, but if you have a chance to win the $100 back that's illegal?

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by jrc

The state will let you put $100 in a slot machine to win a $5 stuffed animal, but if you have a chance to win the $100 back that's illegal?

At the risk of getting massively off-topic, 99% (maybe 100%) of these "vice" laws exist to protect people from themselves, passed by politicians who believe they are the sole keepers of societies morals.

Of course, on the flip side, look at the mess people get themselves into with the gambling that IS legal (stock market, housing market, etc.).

I have to admit, I'm a big fan of Darwinism type politics. I don't really believe in saving the weak from themselves, and think that prostitution, marijuana, gambling, and a host of other currently-illegal things (that I have no personal interest in participating) should be legalized...

[Sal]

If the folks who started the first state lottery in the country were still in office, they would put a BIG Foxwoods/Mohegan Sun style casino at exit one on Rte 93. Huge hotel would be unnecessary. Boston is too close. People would just drive home. Big restaurants and fancy entertainment, however, would be a good thing.

If you're a gambler living in the Boston area, do you want to drive 2+ hours to Southern Connecticut or 25 minutes to Southern NH to lose your money?

NH would make so much money that all the hullabaloo about taxes would fade away. The big problem would be how to divvy up the surplus. (think Alaska).

I believe that Foxwoods (and the 400 or so "Indians" who own it) nets in the neighborhood of 1 billion dollars annually.

But then, what would Granite Staters do with an extra billion. Probably just argue about it. Hmmm... maybe resurect the Old Man.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

At the risk of getting massively off-topic, 99% (maybe 100%) of these "vice" laws exist to protect people from themselves, passed by politicians who believe they are the sole keepers of societies morals.

Of course, on the flip side, look at the mess people get themselves into with the gambling that IS legal (stock market, housing market, etc.).

I have to admit, I'm a big fan of Darwinism type politics. I don't really believe in saving the weak from themselves, and think that prostitution, marijuana, gambling, and a host of other currently-illegal things (that I have no personal interest in participating) should be legalized...

Wow!!!

All that extra legal activity will require some serious disposable income. Hope you include bank robbery in your list of excused illegal activity.

[Irish mist]

Originally Posted by jrc

Outside of Nevada and Atlantic City, gambling is usually a point destanation. When you put in Foxwoods/Moheagan Sun type gambling, everything else is second fiddle. Look at those casinos, there are very few other attractions anywhere near them. Not even very many hotels outside the attached one.

If you put one at the dog track, the dog track would quickly find that making money with slot machines is easier than dogs. Same thing with the Weirs. This might be an improvement, but it will destroy what's there.

Personally I think well regulated gambling should be legal throughout the the state. But setting up special gambling locations is a bad idea.

The sillyness of the current gambling laws strikes me every time I go in the arcades on Weirs beach. They have slot machines, but since gambling is illegal, you must lose every time you play. At least with real slot machines, once in a while you win.

The state will let you put $100 in a slot machine to win a $5 stuffed animal, but if you have a chance to win the $100 back that's illegal?

South Carolina removed all 34,000 (double the amount that Nevada has !!!) slot machines throughout the state in 2000 after 14 years. South Carolina felt it was ruining the quality of life in the state. I'm not anti-gambling, but I don't want to see NH go the way of South Carolina. One, state-controlled mega-plex resort type casino at exit 1 replacing Rockingham Park would keep the lid on the industry without machines in every little store in the state.

Everyone should read about what happened to the quality of life in South Carolina when this happened. They called it video crack ! My guess is we are going to get something in the way of gambling cause the Democrats have run this budget into a ditch with 17.5% increses......and anything short of a broad-based tax is not going to pull us out of what some people are saying is a $250 million dollar hole.
________
350Gtv

[fatlazyless]

Last month in October 2008, Foxwoods Casino, down in southeast Connecticutt just laid off 700, or 6%, of its' workforce. Mostly middle managers and casino workers were let go.

Hopefully, all 700 will show up looking for work at the new Weirs Boardwalk Casino...and help power up the Weirs mighty gambling mecca? ....stay tuned!

Dreaming about a Weirs Beach casino is just fantasy-land. The Nov 4, NH election continues the NH Democratic 'royal flush' all across the legislature-gov's counsel and executive.

What's coming straight through the Weirs is the www.wowtrail.org, a bicycle-walking-roller skating 9-mile waterfront foot trail.

[twoplustwo]

Casinos are designed to be entirely self-contained so there's no want or need to go anywhere else. It's a hotel, multiple restaurants and bars, shopping, and shows all under one roof. Why would anyone go to a local Weirs restaurant when they can get a comped buffet inside a casino?

Incidentally my sister has worked in an AC casino for 25 years and just got laid off. Times are tough all over, even in lands of glitter and excess.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Wow!!!

All that extra legal activity will require some serious disposable income.

Not really. Most of it is already going on, it's just not officially sanctioned, so the state has no way to participate in the funds being circulated.

[kjbathe]

Portsmouth, not the Weirs. International airport, deep water port, scenic location, easy access to I-95 and under an hour from Portland, Boston and the lake, but not on it. Why we continue to ship bus-loads of gamblers and dollars to Southeastern Connecticut, or fly them to Vegas, rather than making NH a Canadian air and three-day Atlantic cruise destination for those dollars is beyond me.

And what do we do with the "revenue" (although I hate the thought of the "government" thinking it needs to be a profit center...)? We do exactly what Governor Palin did for the residents of Alaska: Write the profit-sharing checks back to the residents and cut their taxes.

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by Irish mist

South Carolina removed all 34,000 (double the amount that Nevada has !!!) slot machines throughout the state in 2000 after 14 years.

Hold on.

By report, there were 197,144 slot machines in Las Vegas recently, not 17,000.

It might make sense to put some slots at the greyhound park and turn it into a racino.

A casino at Portsmouth or exit 1 makes sense, but don't count on cruise ships stopping there: many have their own casinos.

[mcdude]

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- A tight state budget combined with a faltering economy has prompted state leaders to take yet another look at expanded gambling. The House Ways and Means Committee recommended this fall that the state pass future gambling legislation by a 9-8 vote. In recent years, expanded gambling measures have been proposed almost every legislative session with little success, but antigambling groups are now worrying the need for funds will sway legislators to approve more gambling. Gambling proponents say the state can no longer continue to make large cuts in the state budget without hurting important programs. Adding slot machines at the state's existing racetrack could bring in millions, but opponents worry that expanded gambling would also bring crime and hurt the local quality of life.

Nov. 16th

New Hampshire's weakening economy is bad for business and hard on state government. But it may be good for the gambling industry, where hopes are high that a desperate need for new revenue this year will inspire legislators to allow slot machines at the state's racetracks and beyond. In the meantime, both pro- and anti-gambling forces are girding for a tough fight at the State House. "This is going to be our hardest fight ever," said Jim Rubens, a former state senator who chairs the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling. The pro-gambling case has made inroads in the House and Senate over the past year. Last spring, a slot machine bill narrowly failed in the Senate; this fall, the House Ways and Means Committee voted 9-8 to recommend a bill to expand gambling. That's a tremendous change, said Jim Demers, a lobbyist who represents Millennium Gaming, the Las Vegas-based company that wants to install slot machines at Salem's Rockingham Park, a horse and dog racetrack.
"I think the actions of the House Ways and Means Committee, which is not considered an extremely pro-gambling committee, speaks volumes to the concerns legislators have as to how to deal with the budgetary process," Demers said. "It's the state's call, but in these very challenging times, there's going to be cuts," said Rich Killion, a lobbyist for the Rock. "But there's only so far you can go before you start impacting our quality of life." Always hard, New Hampshire's budget process this year may be the most difficult in a generation. This year's budget, which ends in June, is now projected to fall short $250 million. Think-tanks have calculated that the next two-year budget could have a starting-point shortfall - assuming current services are maintained and commitments like contractual wage increases are honored - of a half-billion dollars.
Both fans and foes of casino operators say the budget climate may make the political climate ripe for expanded gambling. Plans generally involve permitting high-tech slot machines, or "video lottery terminals" at the state's four horse or greyhound racing tracks, turning them into so-called "racinos," plus potentially allowing one or more of the North Country's grand hotels a permit for slots. Gambling proponents say the state could reap $150 million a year or more from slots, some of which, they argue, is money residents are already spending in one of the other states that do allow casino-style gambling, including Maine and Connecticut. Opponents question those estimates, saying that the cost of affiliated social problems like addiction and crime would wipe out much or all of the state's take.
Pro-gambling legislators say slots are the only viable way for the state to bring in big money. Other major potential revenue streams - either an income or sales tax - are widely seen as doomed because Gov. John Lynch has always said he would veto either. Over the past four years, Lynch, a Democrat, has had a consistent, if oblique, stance on gambling: He's always said that before he can support it, he'll need evidence that it won't harm New Hampshire's quality of life. Pro-gambling forces see that as an open door.

See complete article HERE

[kjbathe]

I ask this question because I honestly don't know, but when I read the following quotes...

"...opponents worry that expanded gambling would also bring crime and hurt the local quality of life." "...[T]he cost of affiliated social problems like addiction and crime would wipe out much or all of the state's take," and "before he can support it, he'll need evidence that it won't harm New Hampshire's quality of life."

...is there any hard evidence to substantiate these fears? What I recall from my days in Connecticut is that the casinos were training and employing lots of people, paying wages higher than they were able to otherwise get for their skill level, paying oodles of taxes to the state and doing other things like buying a new fleet of school buses for the local community, because that's what good corporate citizens do (and the school needed new buses).

I also remember the employees were paying more taxes on their increased wages (aka State "revenue"). I hear the talk and wringing of hands about increased crime and addition, but with the CT casinos and their nearly two decades of experience we can evaluate, is there any fact-based evidence to support the crime and addition claims? I keep hearing the "fear" but I don't see anyone citing the "fact". Is the fear valid?

[Grady223]

And the Weirs turns into Atlantic City? Yuck!

[fatlazyless]

If the cities and towns are running out of money, and residents are getting forced out of their homes by increased property taxes, then maybe the state legislature should consider the local option of a 2 1/2% sales tax similar to Wasilla, Alaska.

Both New Hampshire and Alaska have no state income-no state sales tax, but, and this is a big 'but,' the State of Alaska allows for individual cities and towns to establish and collect a local sales tax. Wasilla has stores like Home depot and Wal-Mart, and Wasilla gets a 2 1/2% tax with a limit of $12.50/ customer store visit, so the tax does not impact large purchases like Ford cars & trucks, or Harley Davidsons.


How could the Town of Meredith use a 2 1/2% tax as applied to the new Hannaford store to reduce the property tax burden, and help pay for its new www.piercemfg.com $725,000 aerial tower, fire truck, which will be the state's most expensve fire truck.

NH already has a state-wide 10% car rental tax, an 8% restaurant food & lodging tax, and a 1 1/2% real estate transfer tax which is the highest in the U.S.

[flyguy]

Let's put up a HUGE complex on Bear Island- that we we can keep all the "criminals" that the casinos will attract offshore!

[WeirsBeachBoater]

That firetruck if I am not mistaken is already paid for. The funds had been allocated through town meeting. So I guess if you want to feel better you already paid for it.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...and help pay for its new www.piercemfg.com $725,000 aerial tower, fire truck, which will be the state's most expensve fire truck....

Nope, not even close...

There are a number of pieces of apparatus around the State, purchased in the last several years, that all retail in the 900k to million dollar range.

Relatively speaking, it appears Meredith was frugal with their purchase, considering what they could have purchased if they had followed in the footsteps of other NH fire departments!

[fatlazyless]

Well ........ Skip, .......right here in Meredith, NH,...... it's definately a case of the very few deciding to spend the money of the very many what with the late night, town meeting, big money, voted spending decisions.

Meredith has a population of about 6200, and about 40% of the residential homes are considered second-home, non-resident housing.

In the presidential election, the town of Meredith voted 1857 for McCain, and 1964 for Obama, for a total of 3821 votes. 3821 is 76% of the Meredith people who may vote.

Take a look at the voting held at the town hall meetings which occur on the second Tuesday night in March, at about eleven - midnight, after a long three-four hour meeting, and you will quickly see that the voter turn-out is drastically diminished. The overall voter numbers is much, much, smaller than in the presidential election.

Many Meredith voters simply chose not to go to the annual town meeting. Why is that? Well, you would have to ask each individual voter. But, it is safe to say that the overall electorate is heavy with older people.

The voter decisions on the big expensive items like the community center, police station, and new fire station were all held at the annual town meeting. The votes were on the order of 145-105, 160-110, and 145-98. Compare these tallies to the recent McCain-Obama vote of 1857-1954, and it is very clear, that right here in Meredith, NH, ........OUR REASONABLE RIGHT TO VOTE ....... is not being served.

[Woodsy]

FLL...

Your kidding right? Your "reasonable right to vote" is not being served??? How so? The town schedules an annual town meeting... (its called an annual town meeting because its held every year at approximately ther same time, posted in the newspapers etc, so EVERY taxpaying resident should be well aware of where & when the meeting is to take place). The residents of the town show up, discuss and vote on all sorts of appropriations. This discussion of opinions takes time, so the annual budget town meetings tend to run long! Especially if there are lots of differing opinions on how to properly appropriate the towns money!

You as a NH citizen and a Meredith resident have the RIGHT to vote! There is no gray area here. "The Few" spending the money of "The Many"? Perhaps if "The Many" cared they would have been there to vote! The "Out Of State" homeowners can voice thier opinion at a town meeting.... even if they cannot legally vote! If someone chooses not participate in the process (for whatever reason, the vote was too late at night, etc etc) it is not an excuse and essentially removes thier opinion/vote from consideration.

Participation is the key... if you didnt want to spend the money on all of these big $$ appropriations, then you should have been more involved in the process.

Woodsy

[LakeSnake]

If you build it they will come.

Then what is left of what NH used to be, will be soon deminished even more.

[M/V_Bear_II]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Participation is the key... if you didnt want to spend the money on all of these big $$ appropriations, then you should have been more involved in the process.

As long as you're there, there's no rule that says you have to pay attention to the debate. Go and take a nap until vote time. If you're a light enough sleeper, the commotion of voting procedures should awaken you. If you snore, though, you may be asked to leave because you'd be disrupting the proceedings. Plus, the moderator might get jealous

I will say, however, that it is ridiculous that second-home taxpayers are not allowed to vote on how the town expends their taxes (though it's mighty big of the town to allow them to come and protest). Some "second home" owners spend nearly 6 months of every year in Meredith, and have no say over the services they receive. My grandparents actually spend more time in Meredith than anyplace else (because they travel often during the winter, though MA remains the primary residence) and have for nearly 20 years (they've been property owners for nearly 40, but are more recently retired). They don't seem to mind not being able to vote (at least, they don't carp on it), but I think it's a flaw in the system.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by LakeSnake

If you build it they will come.

Then what is left of what NH used to be, will be soon deminished even more.

Actually, they may not- the casino industry is in disarray rght now. Quite frankly, I think the worst way to balance a budget is off the backs of those that can least afford it. I have done quite a few projects at Foxwoods, I am there early AM usually. The vehicles in the parking lot at that time are generally held together with duct tape and bailing wire.

Between those silly scratch tickets and numbers games, I think NH has enough state sponsored gambling.

[Waterbaby]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Take a look at the voting held at the town hall meetings which occur on the second Tuesday night in March, at about eleven - midnight, after a long three-four hour meeting, and you will quickly see that the voter turn-out is drastically diminished. The overall voter numbers is much, much, smaller than in the presidential election.

Many Meredith voters simply chose not to go to the annual town meeting. Why is that? Well, you would have to ask each individual voter. But, it is safe to say that the overall electorate is heavy with older people.

Do you attend Town Meeting, FLL? I ask because your paragraph about when the voting actually takes place is a little distorted, IMO. First of all, NH statutes* require that all MONEY items be on the warrant first, before any amendments to town regulations and general warrant articles. Therefore, usually the general operating budget is article one, capital-expenditure requests (as in new fire equipment), etc., follow. Second of all, after the warrant article is read and followed by discussion, voting on that article takes place before moving on to the next article on the warrant. Anyone not familiar with the way town meeting in NH works -- be it the old-style town meeting or an SB-2 town -- would think that no voting takes place at all until late at night, according to your statement above, when this is not the case. Don't get me wrong, I realize sometimes discussions on a particular article can become very heated and go on and on before a vote is taken, but this is not the rule.

As far as your second paragraph quoted above, regarding older people -- I don't understand what you are saying. Do the "older people" not attend town meeting because they need to go to bed early, or are they the majority of the attendees because they don't need as much sleep or are retired so can stay up later than the general population? Thanks for your anticipated clarification!

*If I had the RSA numbers handy I would quote them; I am just speaking from personal experience. Ya'll should have seen the first warrant I did for my town when I worked for the town, not being aware of proper form -- I just put the articles on there as they came in.............. luckily I was corrected prior to it being published!

[fatlazyless]

hey Woodsy...just look at the numbers...the numbers speak loud & clear...like day and night.

In the presidential election, about 3800 Meredith voters came to the polls and voted. In the annual town meetings, about 300 stayed to the end of the meeting and voted.

So, from the same electorate of voters, one style of election gets 3800, and the other style gets 300.

Why is that?

As most everyone knows, the presidential election was held at the community center, with polls open from 7am to 7pm, and voting was done on a paper ballot wthin the privacy of a voting booth. Absentee voting was welcome.

At the annual town meeting, voting is done on the 2nd Tuesday night in March, by a public show of hands, at the meeting's end, which can be at midnight, after a public discussion has been held. Absentee voting was not allowed for nobody, including the military.


My question is; Which style of voting better provides Meredith voters with 'the reasonable right to vote'?

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

hey Woodsy...just look at the numbers...the numbers speak loud & clear...like day and night.

In the presidential election, about 3800 Meredith voters came to the polls and voted. In the annual town meetings, about 300 stayed to the end of the meeting and voted.

So, from the same electorate of voters, one style of election gets 3800, and the other style gets 300.

Why is that?

As most everyone knows, the presidential election was held at the community center, with polls open from 7am to 7pm, and voting was done on a paper ballot wthin the privacy of a voting booth. Absentee voting was welcome.

At the annual town meeting, voting is done on the 2nd Tuesday night in March, by a public show of hands, at the meeting's end, which can be at midnight, after a public discussion has been held. Absentee voting was not allowed for nobody, including the military.


My question is; Which style of voting better provides Meredith voters with 'the reasonable right to vote'?

IMO FLL has a pretty good point. The numbers are still not going to be there (this Presidential election was likely one of the highest percetage wide ever) but TM seems a little behind the times considering all of our crazy lives and schedules.

[M/V_Bear_II]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

IMO FLL has a pretty good point. The numbers are still not going to be there (this Presidential election was likely one of the highest percetage wide ever) but TM seems a little behind the times considering all of our crazy lives and schedules.

It's one evening a year. All politics are local. Reschedule things, or don't complain.

Yes, it's a much bigger commitment than going to the polls and spending 5 minutes filling out a ballot. But it also allows for much more open and honest discussion of issues that directly affect you and your neighbor. Ever spend any time talking to people who have just voted in a presidential election? A large number of them aren't able to tell you who they voted for down ticket or why. ("Why" might often be party affiliation, which is a vapid reason.) Do you want voters who haven't taken the time to inform themselves to spend five minutes making a pattern of X's on the ballot, and deciding your town budget? I'd much rather sit through the debates, which are often interminable, but know that everyone else did too - then I know that we all have a basic understanding of the issues.

But yes, fewer people are willing to make that sacrifice. And lots of people try to get out of jury duty.

I do share the skepticism that voting on the entire warrant is done at the end of the night....but I've never been to a NH town meeting, so I'll defer.

[Happy Gourmand]

I wonder what would happen if the Annual Town Meetings were held on a Saturday. Many work out of town and are too late/tired to attend a week night meeting. And some have to get up early to leave for work the next day and can't comfortably stay until Midnight or even later. Wouldn't this eliminate those late night votes by minority factions that pass items that are on their agenda?
My guess is that the Tuesday night meeting in March or thereabouts is mandated by some State law. What would it take to change or amend that law to allow for better representation at Annual Town Meetings?

[fatlazyless]

New Hampshire has 240 towns, and 57 of them have voted to switch from town meeting voting to SB-2 ballot voting. SB-2, which is an abbreviation for Senate Bill 2 was passed by the New Hampshire legislature in 1996.

SB-2 is not applicable to cities. Cities, like Laconia, Concord, or Dover can vote in a tax cap, if they choose.

Meredith voters will be voting in March, via a 7am to 7pm, private paper ballot, voting booth vote at the Community Center, for or against SB-2 Meredith town, and SB-2 Meredith school. It is two seperate votes. The SB-2 school vote includes the School Administrative Unit #2, member towns of Sandwich, Center Harbor, and Meredith. Sandwich and Center Harbor will be voting in their own voting locations for their School Administrative Unit, SB-2 decision.

A super majority of 60% is needed for SB-2 to get passed.

Here in the lakes region, the Gilford voters gave SB-2 the big green, 60% light in 2004.

Can it happen right here in Meredith, NH? ...stay tuned...as the stock market tanks....and home values plunge...and yet their assessments increase...and property taxes continue to climb...what-o-what will the Meredith voters do to get SB-2 through?

Will it be SITUATION DESPERATE?

Last March, in the first vote Meredith ever had for SB-2, the vote was about 57.5% for SB-2 which was not enough to get it passed. The school vote was about 48% for SB-2, as I recall.

The second Tuesday of March is a long ways off, like four months, and on the other side of the big, bad, long, New Hampsha wintah ! Happy sledding & skiing to all between now and then.!

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by M/V_Bear_II

It's one evening a year. All politics are local. Reschedule things, or don't complain.

Yes, it's a much bigger commitment than going to the polls and spending 5 minutes filling out a ballot. But it also allows for much more open and honest discussion of issues that directly affect you and your neighbor. Ever spend any time talking to people who have just voted in a presidential election? A large number of them aren't able to tell you who they voted for down ticket or why. ("Why" might often be party affiliation, which is a vapid reason.) Do you want voters who haven't taken the time to inform themselves to spend five minutes making a pattern of X's on the ballot, and deciding your town budget? I'd much rather sit through the debates, which are often interminable, but know that everyone else did too - then I know that we all have a basic understanding of the issues.

But yes, fewer people are willing to make that sacrifice. And lots of people try to get out of jury duty.

I do share the skepticism that voting on the entire warrant is done at the end of the night....but I've never been to a NH town meeting, so I'll defer.

Please don't tell me to reschedule or don't complain- I am fully capable of reading and understanding the issues prior to voting. You don't know what people do for a living or what their commitments are.

Phantom makes another good point- Saturdays may be better for TM. I believe that all elections should be held on Saturdays, just as I believe we should be able to vote online.

[NHskier]

Pembroke NH has held their Town and School District meetings on Saturday mornings (10:00AM start time) for many years. While you can still get conflicts with people's work schedules, the biggest conflict over the years is often with Little League try-outs.

While it can tie up a good chunk of 2 consecutive Saturdays, it's much better than latenight sessions.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

IMO FLL has a pretty good point. The numbers are still not going to be there (this Presidential election was likely one of the highest percetage wide ever) but TM seems a little behind the times considering all of our crazy lives and schedules.

The presidential debates are carried out on the public airwaves for close to 1 year before the actual vote happens. By the time the voting day rolls around, every possible iteration of every detail and question has been hashed out endlessly, all that's left to do is pull the lever.

For local "town meeting" issues, the majority of the items haven't really been discussed until the evening of the vote, so it takes time. There is NEVER a good solution. Start earlier and the people who work can't make it. Do it on a weekend and people that go away or travel frequently can be left out, plus there are potential overtime and weekend availability issues for the town employees.