Party politics across state lines

As we all know the structure of a state government varies state by state. With my own personal experiances I was able to pin point some of the major differences between the New Hampshire and Massachusetts legislature. 

New Hampshire:
        In the granite state there are a few things you should know about the set up of their current legislature. This basically volunteer job is an attempt to ward off any corruption seen between members of the legislature and lobbyists alike. Walking into the front flag room of the state house is mesmerizing and the crowds of protesters make it feel like you are in a hearing that could change someones life.... oh wait. Sitting in on a Health and Human services hearing is often times emotional and combative due to the severity of the material being argued. I was lucky enough to witness our state legislature set up things like drug courts and object (but later pass) medicaid expansion. All of which was irrelevant to me at the time until I started to see things passed into law. Needless to say, it opened my eyes to just how much legislature is passed that effects me daily. I worked for the Senate Finance committee where we talked about the budget.... A LOT. Everyone wants funding, I don't care if you are at a local, state, or federal level, everyone has an opinion on where the funds should be allocated. This stepping stone internship taught me things like workplace behavior, how to dress in a formal setting, and how to interact properly with dignified individuals.
          Senate sessions were on Thursday each week and sometimes lasted all day. I worked directly with one of the most powerful members of the senate. Her opinions helped shape some of the social programs New Hampshire has in place today (and she was a Republican). With 400 members of the house and 24 senators, plus an executive council and a governor, the passing of a bill that leans too far either way is VERY hard. In this republic, members are elected to vote in a way that represents their consitiuents accurately. Meaning legislators from the north country may vie for different bills to pass than ones from the seacoast, and so on. I was able to see first hand how New Hampshire handles expenses with very little tax revenue. I could go on and on about the monotonous details but I think you get the big picture.

What should be asked, is this the best way for a state to represent the ideas of its constituents?


Massachusetts:
       In my home state of Massachusetts, I found comfort in knowing that I was involved in the passing of laws that would one day effect my family. For some reason that hits home.... literally. One issue I was working in the commonwealth for was the assault weapon ban that Attorney General Healey put forth. This caused an uproar from the constituents of now Governor, Charlie Baker. My duties included answering calls and how I like to put it, talking people off the ledge. The calls varied when we weren't at press events we were to man the phones. Some pleading with us to help them get their child back from DSS or that they only have a week left and need housing before they live on the streets. What I found more often than not was that there was a reason these people kept calling, their message often times went unanswered. That was until they hired paid interns. On my first day I remember feeling so overwhelmed because I was no longer in a room of my peers be also my competitors. Kids from well connected, extremely wealthy families that knew the governor PERSONALLY, I mean they practically brunched together every weekend. For me this challenge was one I could not lose. I made friends with these kids and found some only have their resume to offer, they had no personal skills and could not carry a conversation to save their lives. But thats beside the point.... this is about government structure.
       I have my qualms about the state legislature like I do with any aspect of government. One thing I had a few questions about was the rule in the state constitution that says the legislature must meet every 72 hours. In Mass voters get the opportunity to vote on line items that go into effect at a later date. The major difference between state lines is that people now have an opportunity to vote on things even their elected officials would say no to.... that could be why Mass is considered a more progressive state (just my theory).  These full time legislators seemed more involved and present because they were paid adequately for the job preformed. All in all, neither is perfect and both approaches seem to please residents of the state but backlash is inevitable.

As a critical thinker and tech savvy milennial, I suggest going on each state government's website to see which would best represent your political agenda before packing your bags.