Work that Poll!

So I volunteered to be a poll worker for this election, and I learned a few things. 

First, apparently, you don't bring body glitter and ones to the training. Because "Poll worker", not "Pole worker". Make a note of that. /nod

Second, if you're a standby worker, you have to be able to fill any job, so you get to stay for the longer training. YAY! Third, at least in Southern California, where I was, they take it seriously. The training is good, and thorough, and they have a hotline for any issues that come up. They also  have roving field personnel from the Registrars office to help and bring extra supplies if needed and inspectors making sure everything is set up and operating correctly. They spend the money to do it right and it shows. 

As the sign above shows, they also provide the ability to vote in a variety of languages, and they even have touch screen systems that can use verbal instructions and braille to help blind people vote independently.  All in all, it's a fairly well thought out system. As to the security of the electronic votes that people are raising, I think it's a relative non-issue in California. Without describing all the security procedures in detail, let's just say that it would have to be an inside job, as in a massive gov't conspiracy, to defeat the various safeguards in place. If THAT is occurring, we're all hosed anyways. 

So let's talk briefly about the results. 

First, I was VERY critical of Hillary, and in no way whatsoever was I any LESS critical of Trump. 

In point of fact, I, and others (six million of us, at least) picked a third party candidate rather than put up with either of them. Granted, using the numbers from 2012 approximately 1.2M would have voted for third party in any case. But that's STILL 4.8M voters who otherwise likely would've voted for a democrat or a republican, and chose to not vote for either. A 400% increase over the last election, and very likely the reason the Democrats lost at least some of the states they did, including Wisconsin. 

I have no problem with my choice for President this cycle, even though they didn't win, because unlike many people, A) I got to vote FOR someone, and not AGAINST someone else and B) MY candidate was the only one without a ton of murky ethical issues both past and present and C) MY candidate was actually the most qualified one in the race with 8 years of elected governance experience as opposed to zero years ...or zero years

We all knew Trump was basically a political neophyte, but one of the things that always irritated me was the painting of Clinton as "The most qualified candidate in a generation!" horseshit. First, being FLOTUS in no way qualifies you to be POTUS anymore than being married to a fireman makes you qualified to run into burning buildings, perform PR on a child or drive a ladder truck. FLOTUS makes speeches written by others on policy decisions made by others. Her only ever elected office was that of junior Senator from New York, a position she was basically handed on a platter. In case you're unfamiliar, that's a single legislative position, it doesn't require working with a bi-cameral legislature en toto, doesn't require developing any policies and doesn't require any governance. You show up, vote, and go make another 250k speech to GS. Not that they aren't buying influence... No, not at all! 

And so now I'm watching all the angst and smugness from either side of the political aisle now with a kind of grim amusement. As if those who voted R or D were ever making a real choice. They were always ever choosing between A) big business or B) big business. Seriously. It was always just the Goldman Sachs candidate, or the Morgan Stanley candidate. Me, I get to sleep soundly at night because I got to vote my conscience, and not vote based on expediency or hatred.

As for the popular contention that any vote not for Hillary is a vote for Trump. That's just wrong. Maybe next time the party could bring a candidate who is worth voting for, like Obama, and you won't have this problem. Seriously, how bad a candidate do you have to have to lose to Donald Trump! Stop blaming others, and look at where you failed as a party. There's a thought! And where you failed is simple, and best part, it's avoidable in the future. You let someone game the primary system for six years so that by the time the primaries rolled around, they had such a massive fundraising lead over everyone else that it was a coronation, not a competition. But it should have been a huge warning that the candidate themselves was so disliked, so difficult to elect, that a 70's something socialist who isn't even a registered Democrat got 46% of the Democrat primary votes! Sanders should've been polling at 5%, not nearly 50%! 

To the DNC (and the RNC too), you should declare a moratorium on allowing people to contact big donors until mid 2018 for the 2020 races. You need to avoid allowing anyone to pre-game the primary system, or you end up with the best backroom dealer, and not someone the general populace actually likes or trusts. Which is how you end up with a guy who looks like a cheeto and sounds like an overage fratboy for President. Your candidate was THAT BAD. Accept that, learn from it, and send us a decent candidate next time. 

Regards,
-Bouncer-