Primary Problems

Decision time...

With the California Primary just a week away, I'm frantically slaving away over my sample ballot, trying to make a host of decisions about state and local candidates. Since our votes carry a heck of a lot more weight in state and, even more so, local elections, I give it as much time and thought as I can to put my voting power to good use. After all, it's where we can each do the most good with our vote.

However, as always, this comes with a big ol' sack of frustrations. Ironically, where our votes have the most power is also where we feel the most powerless. The smaller the election, the less information there is with which to make an informed decision. How are we supposed to make good choices if we don't even know what the choices really are?

No website?

How is it that in 2016 a lot of candidates don't even have a campaign website? Almost every jackass and fool has a useless website for something, whether it's for their self-indulgent blog (hey there!), perverted fan fiction, or conspiracy theories. You're telling me these candidates, who seek to have real and important power in shaping our government, can't even be bothered to put forth the same effort as a lazy blogger? Why even run if you're not going to actually campaign?

Hell, even half the candidates that do have websites either don't offer any information whatsoever as to what they're about, or just vague platitudes about "helping the poor and middle class," "fighting crime," "protecting the environment," etc. That doesn't tell me anything useful. Give me concrete plans you want to enact or support. Anyone can talk the talk; you gotta talk the walk. What is the walk that you want to walk? Do you actually have reasonable, logical, compassionate ideas or are you just a smooth talker or nutjob? 

For example, and not to single out this issue as there are a lot that matter, it's just an example: climate change. Conspiracy kooks, extremists, fossil fuel worshiping militants, and smug corporate stooges can all give the same "combat climate change" spiel as a sane, real, valid activist. Only the sane activist is going to actually do something good and practical about it. Without a clear strategy provided, there's no telling who they really are.

Lastly, why are we even voting on judges? There's so much wrong here. Not only are there too many positions to vote on to be able to give an informered decision, there's basically no easily obtainable information on anyone. The only way to get any idea of who these people are is to find a publication you trust (or at least think you trust) and read their endorsements. Even then, even if you truly trust the source, even if you really believe in what they say, you're still being told who to vote for, which really defeats the purpose of voting. 

Why are these decisions even left up to the people? How are we supposed to know if someone is a good judge or not. Why are their appointments not just left up to the experts, guided by government officials we elected, who presumably we voted for based on a lot better information. Judges seem far too important to be decided on, at what is basically random, by an ignorant public. Maybe take that one out of our hands.

So here I sit, as usual, frustrated as I try to make informed decisions without enough information. I want to use my local voting power for good. I really do. But the system makes that very, very, very hard and nigh impossible. Perhaps that's just as the powers-that-be want it. I'll just have to do my best...

It always ends like this.