PURELY POLITICAL
Who and What’s Worth Voting For and Against
(The following column was scheduled to run in Sunday’s (Oct 23) News-Press but was cut because the editor doesn’t allow “endorsements”. I’ve been on the road driving to Georgia so was not informed until it was too late to do anything about it. Please accept my apologies to everyone who expects this to appear tomorrow.)
Well, election day-week-month is upon us. All the votes will be harvested and dropped into boxes throughout the state, including here in the Santa Barbara area by Tuesday November 8. Before we get into the grit and nit (I hate clichés) of the subject matter, let’s take a moment to reflect upon what we’ve done to the electoral process.
The whole idea of a “protected” ballot is encapsulated by the in-person method of voting. Not only are candidates or their proxies prevented from handing out flyers or other campaign material within a certain number of feet from the entry to a polling place, but voters are given their ballots with protective covering on them so that when they are finished voting… in secret… they can then place a sheath on their choices to prevent anyone nearby from seeing who and what they’ve voted for or against. This method was adopted even before we became a Constitutional republic because property-owning colonial males (the only sector of society that could vote) were required to state orally who or what they voted on, in full view of other participants (similar to an Iowa caucus). The intimidation factor was ever-present, and the pressure to vote a certain way could be overwhelming, so eventually secret paper ballots were adopted.
Now, take the current manipulated machinations we’ve drifted haphazardly to. We’ve returned back to the openly avowing 18th century way of voting. Today, someone… anyone… can “help” someone else fill out a ballot, place it in an envelope in full view of nearby friends, relatives, or, hey, even a candidate or two. A discussion may follow as to why that particular vote was wrong, or whatever. That same ballot could then be taken out at any time during the month-long voting period and “dropped” into one of many boxes created for the occasion. Afterwards, naturally, those boxes are emptied into bags which are then either counted right away or stored for post-election analysis… oh, and tabulated.
Why this is a good thing baffles the mind, but it is easy to see why certain people would support such a convoluted voting schedule. In today’s world, what with computers and the algorithms fed into them, savvy politicians and handlers know exactly where their votes and voters are and now have a complete month to gather “volunteers” to go door-to-door, building-to-building, dormitory-to-dormitory hospital-bed-to-hospital-bed, in some cases prison-to-prison, to collect the ballots they know will strongly favor their candidates. Even better, they know where not to go to collect votes that are likely to favor the opposition. And it has become rather simple to discard votes you believe may help your opposition; just don’t place them in the bag.
Oh, and once those mail-in ballots are separated from the envelopes they’ve been placed in, there is absolutely no way of knowing who filled it out or where it came from. So, if a recount is demanded or ordered, that beautifully clean ballot can be counted any time but can never be validated one way or the other.
It's a crummy system and one that must be scaled back to a one-day or weekend-only in-person voting procedure. As wily Democrats were once inclined to say about abortion: mail-in ballots should be available but rare.
But I digress. I now have my ballot in hand, and here’s how I’m voting: Brian Dahle for Governor, Angela E. Underwood Jacobs for Lieutenant Governor, Rob Bernosky for Secretary of State, Lanhee J. Chen for Controller, JackM Guerrero for Treasurer, Nathan Hochman for Attorney General, Robert Howell as Insurance Commissioner, Peter Coe Verbica for State Board of Equalization.
I’m voting for Mark P. Meuser to fill the Full Term and Unexpired Term for U.S. Senator, and Brad Allen for 24thDistrict U.S. Representative, Mike Stoker for 37th District State Assembly.
I don’t know enough about any judge’s qualifications to make a reasonable guess as to whether one should be elected to his or her respective seat on the California Supreme Court or 2nd District Court of Appeal, but here are the candidates who deserve a “Yes” vote: Judith M. Ashmann in my District. Others are Grimes, Hull, Ramirez, Levy, Hill, and Detjen. For more, you should call the Santa Barbara County GOP Phone Line at 805-569-1136 and someone will be able to help you with those choices that require either a “Yes” or “No” vote.
For State Superintendent of Public Instruction, I’ve chosen the passionate reformer Lance Ray Christensen and for Rosanne Crawford and Gabriel A. Morales to sit on the County Board of Education. Debi Stoker as a SBCC Governing Board Member, along with Sharon Salvador-Jegottka. As for the Montecito Fire Protection District, Stephen Dougherty, Peter Van Duinwyk, and Susan Keller are all good competent people. I can only vote for two of them and haven’t made my mind up yet.
The Propositions are troublesome. I’m a gamblin’ man (it’s now called “gaming”) so I’m not opposed to an expansion of legal gaming. One thing I’d like to see legislation mandating that gaming or gambling debts cannot be legally collectible. In other words, if someone runs up an ultimately unpayable debt to a casino, racetrack, or online bet provider, he or she could walk away and negate the entire amount. By doing so, of course, that bettor would be placed upon a “no-bet” list (sort of a “no-fly” list) and wouldn’t be allowed to place another bet in the State of California. Taxpayers would save court time (lawsuits for collection would be automatically thrown out), and gamblers would be forced to restrain their impulses. Betting houses would have to eat the loss, thereby making them more responsible, very similar to bartenders who are now required to cut off someone obviously inebriated.
Problem solved.
I’m voting “No” on Prop 1, though it is likely to pass overwhelmingly.
The GOP is advising a “No” vote on the expanded gaming suggestions, but I’m voting “Yes,” on Props 26 and 27, even though there is no process in place – yet – to protect addicted gamblers.
I’m voting “No” on Prop 28, 29, 30, and 31.
Votes that I can’t make because they’re not on my ballot is first and foremost, my favorite new educational pioneer Christy Lozano for the Goleta School District Board, along with Dani Blunk. And, if I could, I’d vote for Efie Banalesand Phebe Mansur to sit on the Santa Barbara Unified School District Board.
I live in Montecito, which is in the unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County. We have two school districts – Montecito Union and Cold Spring – and only one (Cold Spring) has a school board election. You can call 805-569-1136 for advice on that too.
That’s it. I am outta here with my spiffy new untraceable mail-in ballot that I must drop somewhere as I won’t be in town for the election!