US Senate Candidates

Note: This post was written based on the impression one gets from the voting system. I have a follow-up post with more details highlighting more severe issues

I know the US has been in the news as a joke due to Donald Trump somehow rising to be the presumptive candidate, but let's not loose perspective and talk about it like this is the end or the worst or whatever. There have ALWAYS been nut-case candidates, and there are issues at every other level. We've made it this far, so we'll probably blunder through and be fine.

Yesterday, for the first time, I got my vote-by-mail ballot and filled it out. Like any true democracy, it entrusts choices to me, the uneducated voter, for which I have no chance of being qualified. I'm asked to vote for 3 different judge seats (one of which had only a single candidate). To make these choices, I can do my own research, or just read the included profile paragraph submitted by the candidates themselves. I did the latter, because how exactly can I make an informed decision on who is the most qualified judge without becoming a law scholar?

There are propositions to vote on. Should we or should we not levy a small tax on all Bay Area property to help fix the wetlands so they help with flood mitigation? That's something I think an average citizen should have a voice in. I'm glad those are in there.

Then we come to US Senate candidates. I get to vote for one. This is something that citizens should be voting for so I'm glad it's on there. The issue here is the size, disorganization, and unfiltered insanity. There were 35 candidates. To choose one, I referred to the info booklet again for the candidate-provided writeups.

First a complaint about this info booklet:

United States Senate candidates can buy space for their candidate statement in this voter guide. Some candidates, however, choose not to buy space for a statement.

The book had writeups for only 21 of the 35 candidates. Were the other candidates lazy, or is it really expensive? Helpfully the California Secretary of State shows no info on the cost, just that the info book spaces are for sale.

That's not to say laziness wasn't an issue, as you'll see. Some statements are huge, some are almost empty. Some portray a bizarre platform that makes Trump look grounded and mundane. Some of them read like the stream-of-consciousness insanity from TimeCube.

  • Pamela Elizondo's statement consisted entirely of a non-clickable (this is a physical pamphlet) link to Facebook
  • Jerry J. Laws just put "Consitutionalist. Americanism"
  • Ling Ling Shi, who I assume prioritizes the economy, wrote "Run for God's Heart and America's Freedom, challenge 10 giant chaos in economy and economy-related sectors"
  • Cristina Grappo is listed as "President Cristina Grappo". It was unclear what she was president of, if you're allowed to put whatever title you want, or if her legal first name is "President".
  • Don J. Grundmann has only ""
  • Karen Roseberry's "S.A.V.E. the future!" doesn't explain the acronym. Am I an idiot, and S.A.V.E. stands for something obvious? (It's actually *"S.A.V.E. the future!"* so I kept looking for an asterix below that would explain it. None existed)
  • Jason Hanania has only "01100101.". This is 65 in hex, probably something in ASCII. I looked into this one, and it led to my whole second post
  • Massie Munroe is the crowning achievement and deserves a full paragraph:

Ms Munroe, unlike many of the candidates, went the distance and filled out a large description. It starts out generically fine, talking about the Constitution. It starts mixing the US and the UN. It capitalizes some strange things in the way I've often seen in conspiracy websites. "Complying with the Constitution of the US/UN in the Spirit of Truth, Serving All in Peace" gives the impression that the spirit of truth isn't an idea or description, but some officially defined group (maybe one I should know about. C'mon, how uninformed am I that I don't know who/what the Spirit of Truth is?). She then mentions the laudable goal of reducing the power of international bankers, thereby ending mind control slavery and non-consensual human experimentation. Her campaign also represents practicing Christ consciousness. She brings up her previous good work where she "identified 'mind control slavery' by satellite energy technology weapons and social engineering programs that have been in continual development for the past 50 years and facilitated their 'declassification'". Unfortunately, she has been under "heavy sanctions" as a result.

I wish her the best on her probably unsuccessful campaign.

I conclude from all this two things:

  • There's lots of laziness, disorganization, and insanity at every level of the US election system, so Trump is different in volume, not in severity
  • The US asks it's voters to decide many things, but the information systems setup to help them are woefully inadequate