Ou-yo-yu what a nice site!
forex mechanical system trading

to "A former NH Senator " from your own law reference:

c. If the election in New Hampshire and the other state or territory are held on different dates, it is an affirmative defense that the person legitimately moved his or her domicile to or from the other state or territory between the dates when elections were held. § 659:34-a

Your suggestion to the person from NH to vote in multiple primaries is under NH state law a felony - so you are instructing your readers to commit felonies? Very interesting since the topic includes the word ethically!

Hardly sounds ethical to me - encouraging commission of felonies!

The relevant statute is NH RSA 659:34-a Voting in More Than One State Prohibited.

An unfair and uninformed response to the question about Congress.

First, of course the majority of us like our own member of Congress more than the whole of Congress. The local Congressman represents the parochial interests that we all have. It is no wonder that someone who lives in Iowa would have different priorities and opinions than someone living in New York City. So, if the question were asked about whether the respondent approved of the job his individual Congressman was doing, the score would be much higher, often over 50%.

To blame the relative inaction in Congress on "Pelosi/Reid & Co." is disingenuous. The people more responsible are McConnell & Co., the Republicans in the Senate and their use (or threat thereof) of the filibuster (requiring 60 votes for ending). The fact is that the Democrats in the Senate are only the Majority party because two independent Senators, Lieberman and Sanders, voted for Reid as Majority Leader. Lieberman frequently sides with the Minority on specific issues, especially on the Iraq war. There was, also, movement on important issues, including raising the minimum wage, among others.
The Congress is, also, not truly representative as the ratio of the population per Congressman varies greatly. In the House, it varies from a half a million to almost 700,000 voters per representative. In the Senate, it is an even greater disparity running from one Senator per 250,000 voters in Wyoming to one Senator per 18,000,000 voters in California.
Pork and trolling for campaign funds are a problem, but they are institutional issues, non a Democrat/Republican issue. And the campaign finance issue is not necessarily Congress' fault as it was the Supreme Court who declared that campaigns could not be limited on spending money, that money equals free speech.
I do have a solution for the campaign finance issue. It's a little complex, so bear with me.
First, a candidate would have to qualify for the primaries by collecting petition signatures, say 3% of the registered members of the party in the Congressional district and 20,000 signatures for the Senate. Then the candidates would be eligible for public financing, lets say a base of $250,000 for Representatives and anywhere from $250,000. in the small states to a few million in the larger states. You can opt out of public financing, but you have to declare how much money you plan on using, and then the amount given to your opponents by the public financing would match what you are ready to spend.
The numbers aren't important, the idea is. Nobody would be prevented from using their free speech/money and there would be no unfair advantage given to wealthy or connected candidates.
Anyway, your snide answer was awful. El Wapo readers deserve better.

Robert117 makes an excellent point regarding the Senatorial candidates running for President:"Why do we think they'll be able to give us all this stuff as president when they haven't done so as Senators?" Unfortunately, not all the candidates are current Senators or even former Senators. But the same question can and should be applied to every candidate - why should we believe you? Give us the meat, not just the psychobabble or the biblical analogies. Give us Substance so we can have hope for things yet unseen.

Is this first letter some sort of joke?

Great - you're wicked smart guy. You figured out a way to legally manipulate the electoral system. Congrats!

I am a free man in a free country. I am given the incredible responsibility of self-government. The law may have loopholes that allow people to vote in multiple states, but you do not have to worry about me - I can be trusted to govern myself.

To imply that I cannot be trusted to vote "within the spirit of the law" implies that I cannot govern myself. Your speech act here is damaging democracy, the republic, and all of the ideals the republic holds dear.

The problem with the average voter isn't so much that they don't pay enough attention to the congressional races. Rather it is that they ascribe to the president so many of the powers that actually reside with congress.

Have a look at the Democratic (in particular) presidential primary front runners. Looking at their platforms it would seem as though they were running for congress. They're all going to give us health care, education etc. Why do we think they'll be able to give us all this stuff as president when they haven't done so as Senators?

The even scarier thing is that the candidates never talk about foreign or military policy in any but the vaguest terms. This when we are in two shooting wars, two tough cold wars (Iran and N. Korea) and have some truly capable potential adversaries (Russia, China) to deal with. What are their plans for the military? We know they are all going to pull out of Iraq (eventually) but what are they going to do about Afghanistan, or much of NATO's refusal to meet their treaty obligations there? What are their plans for the Navy and Air Force? How are we going to meet the challenge of numerous new diesel electric submarines in the hands of our adversaries? What are we going to do about the F15 airframe problem? Are we going to actually deploy a zillion of the uber-expensive Joint Strike Fighters, or are we going to try and extend the lives of the F-15 and F-16 a little longer while looking forward to procure?

You won't hear any of the candidates mention this stuff, and what's worse is you won't see any citizens asking about it either. Yet these sorts of questions are far more germain to the presidency than their wild plans for huge social programs that are destined to be either destroyed or altered beyond recognition in congress.

During war time we are likely going to elect a president from among the three front runners in each party, none of whom has any military experience, only one of whom has any diplomatic experience (and only half credit for that, sorry Hillary), and only two of which have any executive experience. We might get a preacher, a stock broker, an ambulance chaser, a "community organizer", an ex-first lady, or an actor a good deal more obscure than Ronald Reagan was. People have been saying that no one could be worse than Bush, and damned if they aren't trying like hell to prove it in the most absolute sense.