The 1912 Democratic Platform was far more Progressive than now

The thing about voting in California is that your absentee ballot only gets counted if you submitted it well in advance of election day. Absentee ballots submitted on election day don't get accounted for until almost a month later. Since the polls in CA close 3 hours after those in the east, by 7pm on election day, Californians have a pretty good idea of how the rest of the nation voted. If it is close, you can vote for the lesser of 2 evils. In 2000, I voted for Gore instead of Nader at 7:45pm. If one candidate is distinctly ahead, you can vote for the best of the lot, because your vote becomes a statement at that point. In 2012 when Obama was far ahead of Romney, I proudly voted for Jill Stein.

The question is, if the race is close, do you vote for the best choice thereby possibly allowing the worst candidate to get elected like in 2000 when Nader got over 2% of the vote which supposedly stole the election from Gore. The fact is, Nader took the blame but Bush stole the election in a rigged system. The next question is, when the system is rigged, what difference does it make how we vote?

It was obvious to Gore in 2000, to Kerry in 2004, and to Sanders in 2016. The system is rigged and they ended up walking away rather than challenge a corrupt system. Bernie at least used his considerable influence, having nearly as many primary votes as Hillary, to squeeze a few progressive concessions into the Democratic platform. Bernie wants it to be the most progressive platform the Democrats have ever had, but he has overlooked the far more progressive 1912 Democratic platform listed below.  Woodrow Wilson was the Democratic candidate and winner. Link to the actual text of the 1912 Democratic Platform

Curb corporate abuses with:

1. Honest tariffs
2. Regulation of Railroad rates
3. Break up the monopolies with Anti-Trust laws
4. Prohibit all corporate campaign contributions
5. Regulate of Interstate Commerce
6. Conserve of National Parks and wilderness lands free from corporate exploitation
7. Nationalize of Alaskan coal before the giant monopolies take them
8. Labor Rights
9. Oppose the Federal Reserve but favor public banks
10. Post Office Bank
11. A Civil Service Law rather than the Spoils System of government positions
12. Direct election of Senators
13. Farm credit reform
14. A Progressive income tax
15. States Rights
16. Presidential primaries in States
17. Pure Food and Public Health
18. Decrease poverty and the high cost of living with redistribution of wealth
19. Control the Mississippi and use it to generate power
20. Enforce the Monroe Doctrine with a strong navy

 The fact is, that in 1912, everyone was so sick and tired of the giant corporations getting filthy rich at the expense of everyone else, destroying free trade and monopolizing the industries, that all 4 candidates in the election were Progressives.  William Howard Taft, the incumbent, was in the Progressive wing of the Republican Party.  Woodrow Wilson was in the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party.  Former Republican Teddy Roosevelt split the Republican vote by starting a third party called the Progressive Party (aka Bull Moose Party).  Eugene Debs was a Progressive Socialist, left of the other 3 Progressives.  1912 Election candidates in Wikipedia

Conditions a century ago sound a lot like now.  Obviously, whatever the Progressive Reformers did to control corporate abuses a century ago didn't last.  History repeats itself.  But where are our Progressive reformers now, to break the stranglehold of the corporations? 

Our Public Servants Choose to Deceive the Public about Election Results

How can an election be determined on only 40% of the vote???

California has 30 days to report all the mail-in and provisional ballots. Since closing polls saves money, the majority of voters in Mendocino County use mail-in ballots. The County Elections page disingenuously reports 100% votes counted when only 40% of votes were counted in that report.

In that 30 days when the majority of the votes are counted and NOT REPORTED, campaigns change, lives change, decisions are made, all based on counting less than half the votes. When I asked Sue Ranochak, the elected official in charge of these things, she replied that it has always been done that way, even when Marcia Wharff was in charge. Keith Wyner asked Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who referred him to IT. His answer was that it is a software issue.

If it is neglect or a software issue, it is still a matter of our public servants deliberately or negligently deceiving us, the voting public, as to the true results of the election. THE SYSTEM IS FLAWED!!!!

When asked, our county elections official, Susan Ranochak, responded:

The way we've reported our election night results haven't changed.  The number of precincts reporting is always 100%.  The reason for this is all precincts have reported whether it's one vote in the precinct or five hundred.  It's also imperative that the polling places are included in the these results as 100% accounted for.  That in no way means that all the votes are counted.  That is why we identify the report as the final election night report.  When the canvass is complete and the results are posted  we label that report as the final official results.  We do not use the term final official results until we have completed the canvass.

Your are correct some counties have provided additional updates.  It is up to the individual registrar how many updates they will provide during the canvass.  I choose to wait until the canvass is complete and only do one update.  This is not something new.  I've done this during my tenure as Assessor Clerk-Recorder/Registrar Of Voters.  My predecessor Marsha Wharff also thought this was the best route too take so this has been going on for a considerable length of time in Mendocino County.

 "this" refers to deceiving the voters about the results of an election for a month. 

Discussing how the movement continues after Bernie's defeat.  Ugh!