In November of 2000 the country and most of the world were turned upside down waiting on endless court battles on who will be the most influential position in the world. After a trip to the Supreme Court the decision was made final. We ended with a man that did not gain a victory in the populous vote, but did win a majority of the electoral votes. With all of this chaos brought us to a new retrospection to the way presidential elections are held and the pros and cons of our current system. Some have stated that the Electoral College should be removed to better represent the majority vote. Others have stated that a multi-party system would better serve the country and that the two-party system is the problem. I would say that I disagree with both of these statements. I will first say that the Electoral College was not the problem in the election, but it worked in exactly the way it was supposed to. Secondly, the two-party system is not a system that is enforced but more a natural effect of our form of republican government.
Looking at the figures of the 2000 election, we see that the nation was divided. One side was made up of conservatives with the religious fundamentalist, the individualist, the pro-lifers, and many other groups that believed in a candidate that was in tune with them. And, the other side was made up of liberals that included groups like the environmentalist, the unions, pro-choicers, and many more that believe in an alternate candidate. In the middle are people who are moderates, people that do not involve themselves in political issues until the time to decide the presidency. And, this group ends up dividing itself in to these two factions as well.
The vote totals showed that there was more then the issues that divided the country. Location also dictated how people voted. In the states with the greatest amount of voters in the metropolitan areas voted at a 55% - 65% rate for Al Gore, with areas like DC voting at an 85% to 9% for Gore and rural areas like Wyoming, Utah and Idaho had 68% for Bush. But, in states that were mixed with rural and metropolitan voters were the states that decided the election. Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa, were all states that selected Al Gore by less then 1%. The infamous Florida election was .1% difference. Not surprisingly the popular vote for the 2000 election was split evenly with a .51% difference, 48.38% to 47.87%. The electoral vote represented this split of the populous vote well. The closeness of the populous vote in these states is best described by the fact that if New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa would have voted just 10,000 votes to the right, Florida would not of mattered. And, if 7000 more people voted for Gore in New Hampshire it would have been a one electoral win for him.
The popular vote being so close, the states became a player. With each of the states receiving minimum of three Electoral votes instead of just one for each district, it gives an electoral benefit for the small states, en masse, to help stop the “Favorite Son” syndrome and to protect the rights of the minority of the smaller states. Since George Bush captured more individual states he was able to win a majority of the Electoral vote. Even though the popular vote was a small victory for Gore, George Bush won the election because he appealed to a greater diversity of people. So, we see that the Electoral College did work the way it was designed to.
With the issue of the Electoral College addressed, I would like to dive into the issue of the Third and multi-parties. What some people are proposing is, if we had a Third party or a multi-party system it would be better for the political wellness of the country. I view the two-party system as a natural consequence of our form of Republic. With the need for a majority of the Electoral votes to keep the election from going to the House, factions need to work together to achieve their goals.
At the time of the creation of the Constitution there were no national parties, nor did the creators think that there would be. Just four years later, we had two, the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. Two parties seemed to be the natural choice. The next move in the parties happened when the Anti-Federalist fell to the wayside and the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson became the dominate party and the Federalist gave way to the National-Republicans and then to the Anti-Masons, the Whigs, and finally to the Republicans of today.
During all the years of political change, the nation has always moved to a two-party system. There have been four occasions in the last 100 years that a third party has gotten electoral votes in the election for the Presidency. Of these four only Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican running as an alternative to the Republican nominee Taft, was able to garner a second place finish.
One reason the two-party system works in our form of government is that our parties encompass many factions. The Republican Party is considered a Conservative party and includes the Pro-Life group, the religious evangelicals, the anti-tax crowd, the gun owners rights groups, the limited government group, and people who believe in capitalism. The Democratic Party is considered a Liberal party and factions like the Pro-Choice group, Environmentalist, Gun Control crowd, the Pro-activist government crowd, and the Unions seem to gravitate to it.
Having these Parties so diametrically opposed to each other gives the public a choice and the parties a responsibility to make decisions to balance the wants of the inner factions and also adjusting the message to help attract persons that are not affiliated with either of the parties. In this way the need for more then two parties is not there. There are some groups that do not believe in the compromise aspect of two-party system and have created other smaller parties, but these groups do not gain national power, although they have won regional races. The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Reform Party are all parties that have attempted to gain national office, but can only garner a minimal support from its most loyal members. The way they can gain power is open them selves to other factions and have one of the two big dogs stop reaching out to others. This is possible, but not likely.
*All election statistics were taken from http://www.infoplease.com/
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Electoral Folly
I read this article in the Sun-Times and had to write a Letter to the editor here in Peoria.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/editorials/chicagosuntimes.php
Dear Editor,
It has come to my attention that the Illinois assembly has placed on the Governor’s desk a plan to give all 21 of the states electorals to the “National” popular vote winner. They say they are doing this to “…give voters equal influence and keep the candidates from ignoring some states…” I am wondering why giving Electorals to the “National” winner would benefit voters more than a winner-takes-all per state. Is one vote of 300 million better than one vote of 12 million?
Let us look at it this way. Due to some Gerrymandering, we here in 18th District, on the most part, vote for Republicans. We elected Ray LaHood time and time again. Aaron Shock is unopposed to take his place. And overall we normally vote for the Republican nominee for President. But our Electoral for this District is dictated by the State vote total. Does this give the voters here any better influence and keep the state from ignoring our districts needs? NO, as a matter of fact this gives “ALL” the power to the Chicago area. Giving the power to the “National” winner will do the same thing but magnified. Large cities will own the White House. People in large cities have difference priorities then people in middle sized cities and especially farmers. Do you really think that a commoner from downtown Chicago really cares about opening grain markets to India?
If people want to give greater influence to each voter, they will change the winner-take-all of the state’s Electorals to, each district decides who the Electoral votes for. The two Senator Electorals would still be decided by the State’s vote totals. This way you are one of 670,000 (375,000 likeminded voters) that decides your districts choice for President instead of one of 12 million (7 million voters focused on needs of a large city) deciding 21 Electorals for the whole state.
We all need to send Gov. Blagojevich a letter in Springfield, err, CHICAGO to tell him that we need representation in downstate in Presidential Election and we need to scrap this nonsense of “National” winner and change the winner-take-all system to Congressional District Electorals.
Andrew Simmons
Princeville, IL
There are many more reasons that we need to have the Electorals follow the winner of the district vote. One is the limiting the affect of voter fraud and another is giving each voter and equal say in the election of the President.
If you notice who is wanting this plan are states that have large urban city areas. These areas are the ones that benefit most from this plan. I am a firm believer in "States Rights" and I have no problem if New York or New Jersey want to disenfranchises it's rural voters, but for Illinois, I will fight tooth and nail to end this stupidity.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/editorials/chicagosuntimes.php
Dear Editor,
It has come to my attention that the Illinois assembly has placed on the Governor’s desk a plan to give all 21 of the states electorals to the “National” popular vote winner. They say they are doing this to “…give voters equal influence and keep the candidates from ignoring some states…” I am wondering why giving Electorals to the “National” winner would benefit voters more than a winner-takes-all per state. Is one vote of 300 million better than one vote of 12 million?
Let us look at it this way. Due to some Gerrymandering, we here in 18th District, on the most part, vote for Republicans. We elected Ray LaHood time and time again. Aaron Shock is unopposed to take his place. And overall we normally vote for the Republican nominee for President. But our Electoral for this District is dictated by the State vote total. Does this give the voters here any better influence and keep the state from ignoring our districts needs? NO, as a matter of fact this gives “ALL” the power to the Chicago area. Giving the power to the “National” winner will do the same thing but magnified. Large cities will own the White House. People in large cities have difference priorities then people in middle sized cities and especially farmers. Do you really think that a commoner from downtown Chicago really cares about opening grain markets to India?
If people want to give greater influence to each voter, they will change the winner-take-all of the state’s Electorals to, each district decides who the Electoral votes for. The two Senator Electorals would still be decided by the State’s vote totals. This way you are one of 670,000 (375,000 likeminded voters) that decides your districts choice for President instead of one of 12 million (7 million voters focused on needs of a large city) deciding 21 Electorals for the whole state.
We all need to send Gov. Blagojevich a letter in Springfield, err, CHICAGO to tell him that we need representation in downstate in Presidential Election and we need to scrap this nonsense of “National” winner and change the winner-take-all system to Congressional District Electorals.
Andrew Simmons
Princeville, IL
There are many more reasons that we need to have the Electorals follow the winner of the district vote. One is the limiting the affect of voter fraud and another is giving each voter and equal say in the election of the President.
If you notice who is wanting this plan are states that have large urban city areas. These areas are the ones that benefit most from this plan. I am a firm believer in "States Rights" and I have no problem if New York or New Jersey want to disenfranchises it's rural voters, but for Illinois, I will fight tooth and nail to end this stupidity.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Electoral College; the Guardian of our Rights
I just read that state lawmakers have been putting together a plan to replace the Electoral College with a mandate that all the electorals would be decided by the national popular vote. This scares me. Of all the things that have been done to the Constitution in the last fifty years this would be the worst.
Pure democracy is as bad a form of government as a dictatorship. That is why our founding fathers created a republic and not a democracy. A "majority rules" democracy creates an environment of having two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for diner. It never turns out good for the sheep. Not only are these reasons scary but there many more reasons to be scared of this idea.
The idea of the Electoral College is to weigh the voice of the majority with the rights of the minority. In a "Majority Rules" vote the large states would be the only ones heard. Candidates would be going to New York or California and by-passing the "Flyover" country because there is a greater amount of voters here to sway. What type of national leader would he be if he was elected only with the vote of large states. With the small states getting the minimum of three electorals they do end up with a stronger "per vote", but that is only if used "en masse". If not they will even themselves out. This makes a national candidate
One of the other issues that the Electoral College helps is voter fraud. Since I am from Illinois I know something about voter fraud. The state motto is "Vote Early, Vote Often!" and the Voter's Bill of Rights include right to use a death certificate as a valid ID. With the Electoral College voter fraud in Illinois does not affect the National Election except in the 21 Electorals that Illinois has. As a matter of fact, if Electorals were done by Congressional District the effect of voter fraud would be limited to the district that the fraud that is done in and the two electorals that is determined by the state's popular vote. In a vote as close as the 2000 election voter fraud could have changed that 500,000 vote defecit to a 500,000 very easily. Twenty Ttousand in this city, Twenty thousand in that city. With a national election any voter fraud affects the national numbers, and since the easiest place to create fraud is in a place with many voting places close together, large cities will end up with benefit from the voter fraud. When you hear about the percincts in some large cities that ended up with nearly 90-95% of the registered voters voting and they are almost all for the same candidate you have to wonder. And the media says that people in the inner cities are disenfranchised.
Ah, the media. With a National Election the media grows to the power of Gods in elections. Media has the power to make or break a candidate. It doesn't matter how great your message is if the Media does not cover you no one will know your name. Do you think candidates in smaller area will get any attention if it is up to national media? Where do media outlets get people to interview? Places where there are lots of people; cities and large cities at that. Again, a "Majority Rules" election is the scariest thing I can think of.
Do voters in large cities have the same priorities as a person from say, Iowa? How about Tennessee?, New Mexico?, Alaska? No, a person in the cities is not going to worry how a social welfare program is going to work in farm country. They are not going to worry about illegal immigration in New Mexico or Gun Rights in Tennesee. The the majority thinks that agricultral issues are not that important and that Global Warming would be helped if all the farmland in Iowa is turned into forests. Guns are bad and no one should own one, Majority Rules!
In each of the points I noticed that a "Majority Rules" style always benefits the large urban areas. I have also noticed that these large urban
Pure democracy is as bad a form of government as a dictatorship. That is why our founding fathers created a republic and not a democracy. A "majority rules" democracy creates an environment of having two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for diner. It never turns out good for the sheep. Not only are these reasons scary but there many more reasons to be scared of this idea.
The idea of the Electoral College is to weigh the voice of the majority with the rights of the minority. In a "Majority Rules" vote the large states would be the only ones heard. Candidates would be going to New York or California and by-passing the "Flyover" country because there is a greater amount of voters here to sway. What type of national leader would he be if he was elected only with the vote of large states. With the small states getting the minimum of three electorals they do end up with a stronger "per vote", but that is only if used "en masse". If not they will even themselves out. This makes a national candidate
One of the other issues that the Electoral College helps is voter fraud. Since I am from Illinois I know something about voter fraud. The state motto is "Vote Early, Vote Often!" and the Voter's Bill of Rights include right to use a death certificate as a valid ID. With the Electoral College voter fraud in Illinois does not affect the National Election except in the 21 Electorals that Illinois has. As a matter of fact, if Electorals were done by Congressional District the effect of voter fraud would be limited to the district that the fraud that is done in and the two electorals that is determined by the state's popular vote. In a vote as close as the 2000 election voter fraud could have changed that 500,000 vote defecit to a 500,000 very easily. Twenty Ttousand in this city, Twenty thousand in that city. With a national election any voter fraud affects the national numbers, and since the easiest place to create fraud is in a place with many voting places close together, large cities will end up with benefit from the voter fraud. When you hear about the percincts in some large cities that ended up with nearly 90-95% of the registered voters voting and they are almost all for the same candidate you have to wonder. And the media says that people in the inner cities are disenfranchised.
Ah, the media. With a National Election the media grows to the power of Gods in elections. Media has the power to make or break a candidate. It doesn't matter how great your message is if the Media does not cover you no one will know your name. Do you think candidates in smaller area will get any attention if it is up to national media? Where do media outlets get people to interview? Places where there are lots of people; cities and large cities at that. Again, a "Majority Rules" election is the scariest thing I can think of.
Do voters in large cities have the same priorities as a person from say, Iowa? How about Tennessee?, New Mexico?, Alaska? No, a person in the cities is not going to worry how a social welfare program is going to work in farm country. They are not going to worry about illegal immigration in New Mexico or Gun Rights in Tennesee. The the majority thinks that agricultral issues are not that important and that Global Warming would be helped if all the farmland in Iowa is turned into forests. Guns are bad and no one should own one, Majority Rules!
In each of the points I noticed that a "Majority Rules" style always benefits the large urban areas. I have also noticed that these large urban
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Social Welfare, Helping the Butterfly
Our Pastor opened this morning's Sunday School lesson with a story of a boy that found a butterfly that was just getting out of its cocoon and it was struggling. This boy had a heart of gold. He thought that he could go inside and get a pair of siscors and cut the cocoon so the butterfly would have an easier time of getting out. So he did. But he came to find out latter that he had just cursed this butterfly to a life without flight. Because of this charity, the butterfly never had to struggle to come out of the cocoon which just happened to be way that the butterfly gained strength and bloodflow to help him develop the large beautiful wings that carry it in such majestic manner. So this loving boy with the big heart unwittingly changed the fate of this butterfly from a creature that helps nature, continues to pro-create and most of all, brings a beauty to nature that is not always there, into a creature that most likely became toad food within a few minutes of falling from the tree.
The Pastor here went off on Ephisians 5:15-16 and my mind, like always, went in a totally different tangent. My tangent is the affect of the Great Society on the people this program was supposed to help, the poor. In the "Does One Great Man Out Weight 1000 Criminals" post I did a few weeks ago, I tried to show that in the end, I believe that the great society had more to do with the high crime rates starting from the mid 1960s. And now I also want to state that it is also the cause of many other issues that have arisen since, such as the perpetual poverty, high illigitamace rates, and continued racial issues.
This is a repeat of the Boy and the Butterfly. In the 1960s after the long battle to help racial equality our leaders felt this good intentioned need to cut the cocoon and create an assistance to help the poor. Believing that the poor needed help to climb out of poverty, LBJ and congress created a program that gave money to the poor and they magically would become middle classed by having a steady income. But what happened was the "Butterfly" never flew. The checks came and nothing changed. Many problems developed from this. One problem was that the program was setup as an assistance to un-wed mothers only. So the incentive for having legitamite children was gone. Sure they have three squares, but little else. The childern grew up with little hope for the future, boy's had little leadership from fathers and so they replaced that with leadership from the men of the gangs. The rise of gangs caused a rise in crime and as can be seen in the middle of the 1960s on, crime rate increase corrolates directly to the begining of this "Great Society".
So what went wrong with this Great Society? I believe that the premise that it was created with was the problem. I think the framers had seen the great strives in the Civil Rights and wanted to continue it to better the plight of the lower income blacks. They used the tool that they believed to be the best to do this, Government. I don't think they realized that government was not what gave them the victories in the Civil Right fights, it was the Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and all the people that followed them. It was the struggles to get out of the cocoon that created this great change, not government. So what do we do now? Most importantly we restore hope. With all the government assistance, people never had something to look forward to except a check. Cool, we can live one more week. But what can they look forward too? I think we as a society need most is to give hope to the needy. The problem is that the government can't give hope. Hope only comes in knowing that things will get better. Only then do people stop being angry. Only then do they start looking at how they to better there life. I believe that only the Churches, Mosques, and Synogoues can start the revival of Hope. It's time to return this issues back to where it belongs, the people that give hope not just money. Let us give each American the vision and hope that Martin Luther King gave in his "I have a Dream" Speech;
"...I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together..."
And the butterfly takes flight!!
The Pastor here went off on Ephisians 5:15-16 and my mind, like always, went in a totally different tangent. My tangent is the affect of the Great Society on the people this program was supposed to help, the poor. In the "Does One Great Man Out Weight 1000 Criminals" post I did a few weeks ago, I tried to show that in the end, I believe that the great society had more to do with the high crime rates starting from the mid 1960s. And now I also want to state that it is also the cause of many other issues that have arisen since, such as the perpetual poverty, high illigitamace rates, and continued racial issues.
This is a repeat of the Boy and the Butterfly. In the 1960s after the long battle to help racial equality our leaders felt this good intentioned need to cut the cocoon and create an assistance to help the poor. Believing that the poor needed help to climb out of poverty, LBJ and congress created a program that gave money to the poor and they magically would become middle classed by having a steady income. But what happened was the "Butterfly" never flew. The checks came and nothing changed. Many problems developed from this. One problem was that the program was setup as an assistance to un-wed mothers only. So the incentive for having legitamite children was gone. Sure they have three squares, but little else. The childern grew up with little hope for the future, boy's had little leadership from fathers and so they replaced that with leadership from the men of the gangs. The rise of gangs caused a rise in crime and as can be seen in the middle of the 1960s on, crime rate increase corrolates directly to the begining of this "Great Society".
So what went wrong with this Great Society? I believe that the premise that it was created with was the problem. I think the framers had seen the great strives in the Civil Rights and wanted to continue it to better the plight of the lower income blacks. They used the tool that they believed to be the best to do this, Government. I don't think they realized that government was not what gave them the victories in the Civil Right fights, it was the Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and all the people that followed them. It was the struggles to get out of the cocoon that created this great change, not government. So what do we do now? Most importantly we restore hope. With all the government assistance, people never had something to look forward to except a check. Cool, we can live one more week. But what can they look forward too? I think we as a society need most is to give hope to the needy. The problem is that the government can't give hope. Hope only comes in knowing that things will get better. Only then do people stop being angry. Only then do they start looking at how they to better there life. I believe that only the Churches, Mosques, and Synogoues can start the revival of Hope. It's time to return this issues back to where it belongs, the people that give hope not just money. Let us give each American the vision and hope that Martin Luther King gave in his "I have a Dream" Speech;
"...I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together..."
And the butterfly takes flight!!
Calling all Cast Members
Chad Stembridge, a friend and a finalist in the Young Movie makers awards, is calling for people to be in his new film. With great job he did with his first short, I am sure this will be an even better film then the first.
Hello Friends,
You're getting this because I thought that you might be interested, or have friends that may be interested, in participating in Stembridge Mill's next short film, Precious Treasure.
So as not to be redundant, I'll not waste time explaining everything in this email that you'd read anyway if you read the postings on my website. So here's the link.
Even if you wouldn't be able to help physically (as in being in the cast or production crew), you could help by spreading the word, contributing, or praying for the project (in fact, there are crew role designations for these very things!).
The tentative production dates are either March 31st to April 5th, or April 7th to April 12th. At this point, however, I am leaning towards beginning production on the 7th of April. Though I'm hoping to get six solid days of shooting in, there is the possibility that 1) locations will be unavailable for partial days, 2) we'll need to schedule a couple extra shooting days (I'll try to schedule it so that I won't need a full cast or crew for extra days), or 3) we won't need to use all six days (preferred choice!).
I'm also planning on having a meeting for anyone interested in helping, tentatively on Feb. 23, to allow for further details and interaction. This meeting most likely will take place in the auditorium of Princeville Baptist Church, Feb. 23rd, 7:00 PM. If you need directions, let me know. Attendance to this meeting is not required for people to be a part of the production.
Cast auditioning will be tentatively held on March 1st or 8th, most likely also at Princeville Baptist Church. Once again, attendance to auditions are not required, but some form of audition will be carried out if a person is interested in playing a character role. Persons interested will receive at the very least the portion of the script auditioning will be taken from, and possibly up to the whole script.
If you're at all interested, please let me know! If you know of anyone that would be interested, please spread the word.
Thanks!
Soli Deo Gloria!
--chad stembridge
Hello Friends,
You're getting this because I thought that you might be interested, or have friends that may be interested, in participating in Stembridge Mill's next short film, Precious Treasure.
So as not to be redundant, I'll not waste time explaining everything in this email that you'd read anyway if you read the postings on my website. So here's the link.
Even if you wouldn't be able to help physically (as in being in the cast or production crew), you could help by spreading the word, contributing, or praying for the project (in fact, there are crew role designations for these very things!).
The tentative production dates are either March 31st to April 5th, or April 7th to April 12th. At this point, however, I am leaning towards beginning production on the 7th of April. Though I'm hoping to get six solid days of shooting in, there is the possibility that 1) locations will be unavailable for partial days, 2) we'll need to schedule a couple extra shooting days (I'll try to schedule it so that I won't need a full cast or crew for extra days), or 3) we won't need to use all six days (preferred choice!).
I'm also planning on having a meeting for anyone interested in helping, tentatively on Feb. 23, to allow for further details and interaction. This meeting most likely will take place in the auditorium of Princeville Baptist Church, Feb. 23rd, 7:00 PM. If you need directions, let me know. Attendance to this meeting is not required for people to be a part of the production.
Cast auditioning will be tentatively held on March 1st or 8th, most likely also at Princeville Baptist Church. Once again, attendance to auditions are not required, but some form of audition will be carried out if a person is interested in playing a character role. Persons interested will receive at the very least the portion of the script auditioning will be taken from, and possibly up to the whole script.
If you're at all interested, please let me know! If you know of anyone that would be interested, please spread the word.
Thanks!
Soli Deo Gloria!
--chad stembridge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)