I think voters have already decided. This was a slam dunk.

Local offices are "non-partisan" to prevent organized political parties from controlling who gets to run for office. The Board of Supervisors - and all other non-partisan offices will remain so unless the California State Constitution is amended.

A non-partisan office does not mean that those elected will be "non-partisan".

Mr McPherson is, was and always has been, a proud member of the Republican Party. That some members of the Democratic Party might support him says more about them than it does him.

Mr McPherson may claim to be an independent but his voting record in the state legislature provides scant evidence - he voted with his party far more often than not, particularly on substantive issues.

Mr McPherson has been well rewarded for his Republican Party loyalty, in his career as a Republican politician he has received contributions in excess of $6.5 million, most of which came directly from the party and it's main beneficiaries: real estate developers, bankers, insurance executives and the like.

Mr McPherson may be a very nice guy but make no mistake about his political partisanship, he is a Republican, pure and simple.

Please correct the videos that you have posted of the candidate forums. If you watch the videos you will notice that you have mistakenly posted Bill Smallmans opening comments from the SLV forum into both the SLV and SV videos. Hopefully this will be easy for you to correct.

It's always amusing to hear the Republican Party defined by a self-identified Democrat. If the economy, public safety, environment, education, etc, are priorities, it doesn't matter to me what label you are afraid of.

I will vote for the candidate who knew what "renewable resources" were before his campaign team taught him that word.

Then why doesn't Bruce register as an independent? He continues to identify himself with the Republican party. He does this by choice; no one is twisting his arm. Surely his Republican supporters wouldn't desert him were he to declare himself independent, would they? After all, it is a non-partisan office. No, I think we need to take it seriously that he has retained his Republican party affiliation and accept what that means -- that he supports their ideology of starving government, regardless of the lack of services that result, and maintaining the lowest possible marginal tax rates so those with great wealth are not compelled to help others whose life path hasn't been as financially rewarding. Our schools and our infrastructure need more revenue, and Republicans statewide, at every level of government, need to either revise their position or get out of the way. Democrats and independents need to stand together on this.