I was a poll worker

by Hortensia 24 Replies latest social current

• 

  smiddy

  I was looking forward to seeing hortensia as a pole worker/dancer myself , oh well , maybe next time .

  Then again maybe it wouldnt be a good look ( sorry hortensia ) then again maybe it would be .

  smiddy
• 

  talesin

  ahahaha @ smiddy!

  I work at every election, sometimes as a poll worker (can't say that without smirking now, smiddy, love it hehehe), and THANKS! *puts hands on hips, and looks stern*, and others as a DRO (Deputy Returning Officer) which sounds like a big wheel but is nothing to write home about..

  You're right. It's fun, good conversations, and easy money. It's a good way for the voting public to get involved, have a bit of fun, learn, and make a few bucks in the process. All things I like. *grins*

  tal
• 

  Hortensia

  You're right, Talesin. It's a good thing to do, and fun. I have to look around for some other thing like that to do. Elections don't come along very often! I was a Precinct Inspector this time, my second time being an inspector. All that means is that I organize the folks in my precinct team and try to solve problems. I feel quite inadequate, as a matter of fact, but I did tell them I'd do whatever was needed and that was what they needed.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I want to explain my comments concerning the American electorate and centrism. We have few choices for laadership and policy compared to other democratic nations. I do believe that it matters to me personally and to the nation which party sector is elected. Corporations are a major factor in American life. They do not run this country, however. Unsophisticated people, doing ;quickk Internet analysis, may believe so. I see corporations hemmed in by federal and state laws and regulations. CEOS do not meet in back rooms. They meet with their legal staff. The electorate can make a difference. Hollywood is a factor. The Jewish lobby is another factor. College students are not voting.

  Politically tinged songs bemoan our lack of choice. "laugh about it, joke about it, either way you lose." A major problem during the Viet Nam War that lead to unrest was that neither party offered an alternative to continued war during the general election. Other countries have multiple parties. Of course, the Tea Party is obstructionist. Time will tell if the main GOP can keep them in check. The Tea Party ascendancy may be a grea gift to the Democratic nominee.

  Because we only have two parties in reality, many candidates with no realistic hope for election run anyway to moderate their opposition's positions. Studies show time and time again that a credible challenger makes the other candidate tack towards the middle. Mitt Romney may have been a viable candidate against President Obama but he was weaked by the idiocy of the GOP primary cycle. The Democrats were able to paint him as a wacko conservative. Of course, Romney had personal elements that showed he was out of touch with regular Americans.

  Another factor is that our leaders tend to be drawn from the Ivy League and comparative elite schools. The education and world view on these campuses turns out people who think alike. The old boy network is retained. It works well in law and investment banking. These schools encourage privilege. You are taught that public service is a duty. It is patriotic. There is great civility in the upper ranks because of this. Campaign finance requirements keep other peope with limited resources from viable campaigns. Parties rarely recrut candidates from the working and middle class anymore. I believe this trend exists in other countries. Britain is a good example. France is another one.

  We have limited choice in the United States. Whenever you compare political systems, there are good points and bad points. Centrism keeps America on a relatively steady course. The financial markets are not disrupted so investors are safe. Obama is very centrist to the chagrin of progressives. I wonder if the responsibilities of the office itself shape political views and policy.
• 

  kaik

  BOR, the democractic system all over the world is not efficient and USA is not exception. However, there is very little alternative political alertnativse which would either result of right/left wing dicatorship, absolutims, or oligarchy. Combine with massive apathy of potential voters who do not care at all about politics, this only increased the change for extremism to thrive. GOP at present form is extremist, neofascist party (as seen by non American observers), which based its grassroot support among aged or impoverished demographics, while middle class does not feel to be represented by Democrats and thus does not vote. Either way, every society has type of goverment its deserves. If people do not want ACA but faith based healthcare, retirement, education, and want to be ruled by OT laws, be it. 2000 years of failed governments based on Christianity speaks on its own. They could not deserve anything else.

  Biggest problem for the health of te democracy is failing democratic standards. In the freedom of press, USA is not even in top 25 countries. There is a huge quality difference between British, French and Austrian (yes Austrian, NOT GERMAN nor Australian) newspapers and media, and American one. Free and independent media is the first step for better public service instead radiating propaganda from specific lobby groups. But people love its media and this will not change in out life time if ever.

  One of the bloodiest dictatror of the 18th century, Maximiliane Robespierre wrote:

  What is our aim?
  It is the use of the constitution for the benefit of the people.
  Who is likely to oppose us?
  The rich and the corrupt.
  What methods will they employ?
  Slander and hypocrisy.
  What factors will encourage the use of such means?
  The ignorance of the sans-culottes.
  The people therefore must be instructed.
  What are the obstacles to their enlightenment?
  The paid journalists who mislead the people every day by shameless distortions.
  What conclusion follows?
  That we ought to proscribe these writers as the most dangerous enemies of the country and to circulate an abundance of good literature.
  The people- what other obstacle is there to their instruction?
  Their destitution.
  When will the people be educated?
  When they have enough bread to eat, when the rich and the government stop bribing treacherous pens and rogues to deceive them and instead identify their own interests with those of the people.
  When will this be?
  Never.

  I disagree with Jacobins and everything what they stood for, but problem with media and generally ignorance of masses will be always obstacle to the enlightenment. This was known 221 years ago and anyone can make own conclucion...