Readers Not Too Interested In Gov. Nixon’s Actions on Controversial Bills
Only 54 readers voted in the poll last week, the lowest response I’ve ever had for a weekly poll:
Q: Gov. Nixon signed ‘compromise’ bills on puppy mills & vetoed workplace discrimination bill, thoughts?
- Nixon should have vetoed both 22 [40.74%]
- Nixon got it right 15 [27.78%]
- Nixon should have vetoed the puppy bills but signed the workplace discrimination bill 12 22.22%
- Nixon should have signed both 4 7.41%
- unsure/no opinion 1 1.85%
Glad to see that 40% thought Nixon should have vetoed both.
– Steve Patterson
Indifference? Legislative fatigue? Both topics are far removed from “public policy, urban planning and related politics in the St. Louis region”? Personally, in the bigger scheme of things, neither bill (like many the legislature considers) was very important / would have impacted me in any meaningful way.
Indifference? Legislative fatigue? Both topics are far removed from “public policy, urban planning and related politics in the St. Louis region”? Personally, in the bigger scheme of things, neither bill (like many the legislature considers) was very important / would have impacted me in any meaningful way.
Stray animals are a big issue in St. Louis and regulation of breeders is policy.
Stray animals are a big issue in St. Louis and regulation of breeders is policy.
That sums it up right there: neither was very important to me. When all the voters start realizing that it isn’t just about them, but about your neighbors, friends, and other groups (farmers, poor, working class, urbans, etc) and voting on what is best for the city, state, and nation, then and only then will things start to change for the better.
That sums it up right there: neither was very important to me. When all the voters start realizing that it isn’t just about them, but about your neighbors, friends, and other groups (farmers, poor, working class, urbans, etc) and voting on what is best for the city, state, and nation, then and only then will things start to change for the better.
I think you’re missing my point. This poll had a low response rate because the issues were of low interest to many of this blog’s readers, not that they were unimportant to certain segments of our state’s population. Expecting everyone to actually care about (and agree with) every issue their “neighbors, friends, and other groups (farmers, poor, working class, urbans, etc)” care about is pretty idealistic/naive.
I think you’re missing my point. This poll had a low response rate because the issues were of low interest to many of this blog’s readers, not that they were unimportant to certain segments of our state’s population. Expecting everyone to actually care about (and agree with) every issue their “neighbors, friends, and other groups (farmers, poor, working class, urbans, etc)” care about is pretty idealistic/naive.