Contact Us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right. 

PO Box 3201
Martinsville, VA 24115
United States

Stephen H. Provost is an author of paranormal adventures and historical non-fiction. “Memortality” is his debut novel on Pace Press, set for release Feb. 1, 2017.

An editor and columnist with more than 30 years of experience as a journalist, he has written on subjects as diverse as history, religion, politics and language and has served as an editor for fiction and non-fiction projects. His book “Fresno Growing Up,” a history of Fresno, California, during the postwar years, is available on Craven Street Books. His next non-fiction work, “Highway 99: The History of California’s Main Street,” is scheduled for release in June.

For the past two years, the editor has served as managing editor for an award-winning weekly, The Cambrian, and is also a columnist for The Tribune in San Luis Obispo.

He lives on the California coast with his wife, stepson and cats Tyrion Fluffybutt and Allie Twinkletail.

IMG_0944.JPG

On Life

Ruminations and provocations.

Filtering by Tag: voting

Questioning the election: How 'making sure' creates doubt

Stephen H. Provost

Court after court has thrown out Trump’s challenges to the election results, but because the courts keep hearing them, that must mean there’s something of substance worth considering. Or so we think. The seed of doubt has been planted. The more recounts we undertake, the less confidence we have in the original count, because even if the result only changes by a few votes, that proves there was something wrong the first time.

Read More

2016 isn’t the main reason Democrats don’t trust the polls

Stephen H. Provost

The narrative is consistent: Democrats don’t trust this year’s polls because Hillary Clinton lost even though she led in 2016. It’s the old principle: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”. .. (So), it’s not the polls Democrats don’t trust, it’s the feeling of optimism that goes along with those strong poll numbers.

Read More

What if Democrats tried to suppress the vote?

Stephen H. Provost

What if Democrats tried to suppress the vote? Here’s a tongue-in-cheek look at what that might look like. Please note: This is satire. No one should, under any circumstances, seek to impede or discourage American citizens — regardless of their political affiliation — from exercising their constitutionally protected right to vote.

Read More

Mail-in election the only humane response to coronavirus

Stephen H. Provost

Politicians in both parties claim that Americans’ safety during the coronavirus pandemic is their top priority. Unfortunately, their actions indicate just the opposite.

Donald Trump, true to form, is more interested in protecting his brand and deflecting blame than anything else. His first concern is his own political survival. And he’s not alone. Politicians in both parties are showing their true colors — and their hypocrisy — in calling for businesses to close, events to be canceled and people to stay home. Except, of course, when it comes to political events. And voting.

Neither political party has, as of this writing, canceled its national convention. This is the height of irresponsibility, and more than that, it’s a thumb in the eye of ordinary Americans who’ve been put out of work and are facing fines if they don’t stay at home.

The Democrats deserve more blame that the Republicans, in this case, because its convention is set for July, more than a month before the GOP gathering. The Dems say they’ve got a backup plan, but won’t say what it is. Trump, meanwhile, says there’s “no way” he’d cancel the Republican con. He doesn’t give a flying you-know-what about anyone but himself. Neither, it seems, do a lot of other people in Washington.

Alexandria Cortez-Ocasio threatened to force representatives to fly back to Washington so they could vote in person on the massive virus relief package. Republican Thomas Massie actually did so. Because a roll-call vote was more important than being safe — even though it was entirely unnecessary.

Or at least not nearly as necessary as earning a paycheck to pay the bills, so families can stay fed and housed. It won’t do any good to have a “shelter in place” order if you’ve got no shelter in which to place yourself.

It’s yet another example of the clueless Beltway mentality: Politicos consider themselves a privileged class, and rich politicos (which is most of them), even more so. While the rest of us are stuck at home, many of us out of work and dealing with monthly bills, the parties are hell-bent on having their parties. To “protect democracy.” In their minds, democracy is synonymous with their own re-election, not with a fair and honest vote count. Read on for the details.

Speaking of voting, they’re telling people to go to the polls and cast their ballots, even though poll workers are contracting COVID-19. That happened in Florida, which (along with Illinois and Arizona) went ahead with their in-person primaries March 17 despite the spread of the virus. That was two weeks ago, and it’s spread a lot more since then. But even with 80% of the nation on orders to stay home, Wisconsin is vowing to forge ahead with its April 7 vote.

Republicans are largely to blame on this one: The GOP leader of the state Assembly called the Democratic governor’s request for a mail-in election “logistically impossible and incredibly flawed.” In other words, it wouldn’t benefit them. I guess people dying of a virus doesn’t rise to the level of “logistically impossible and incredibly flawed” in their book.

And it’s funny, because somehow, Ohio managed to make the switch to an all-mail-in primary on short notice. So it’s not impossible at all. In fact, it’s the only rational, humane way forward.

Resisting mail-in voting for political reasons is nothing new. Doing so when people’s health is at risk is. It’s a time-honored (and shameful) tradition: The party in power rejects mail-in voting because it recognizes that such an option will increase the number of votes for the opposition. Party leaders and incumbents don’t want to relinquish power, pure and simple. They do it for the same reason they draw “safe” districts, resist motor-voter laws — and for the same reason they supported poll taxes, literacy tests and other anti-democratic measures in the past. They’d do it again if they could get away with it.

They say they want to protect democracy? Their actions, historically speaking, say the exact opposite. And how about protecting people for a change?

The political parties should both cancel their self-congratulatory conventions; they’re little more than exercises in free advertising (propaganda) anyway. And, more importantly, the federal government should immediately institute a fully mail-in general election. If Ohio can do it on short notice, the feds can do it eight months out. If the virus abates, they can reopen the polls, but it’s time to plan for the worst-case scenario. If the government really believes 100,000 to 240,000 people could die of this thing, holding an in-person election amounts to a death sentence for some of the people who’ll show up at the polls.

A mail-in vote is feasible this far out. But the more they put off planning, the harder it will get. It must be done now.

Failure to act will prove one thing: Our supposed representatives care more about their own power than people’s lives.

I already knew that anyway.

It’s up to them to prove me wrong.

Photo: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 by eagle.dawg

What if we could vote "no" on candidates?

Stephen H. Provost

I want to vote "no" this election.

Not “none of the above.” This is different: I want to be able to actually vote against candidates I don’t like.

The cold, hard truth is there are a lot more politicians I don’t want elected than candidates I can get excited about, and I’m guessing you might feel the same way.

Sure, we can put photos of them dartboards and engage in some friendly target practice, and we can squawk about them on social media. But what if we had an actual, tangible way to express our displeasure — not by voting for some other candidate we might consider the lesser of two or more evils, but by casting a vote directly against that vile carpetbagger, commie or corporate crony we so despise?

Think of the satisfaction! We bemoan the lack of voter participation, yet just imagine how many more people might come to the polls to bury Caesar (under a mountain of “you suck!” chads) than to praise him.

ONE PERSON, TWO VOTES?

Pollsters routinely measure both favorable and unfavorable ratings for candidates. Why shouldn’t we be allowed to express those opinions at the ballot box?

What if voters got to vote twice: Once for the candidate they like, and once for the candidate they wouldn’t want to see in office before hell freezes over or a Led Zeppelin reunion tour — whichever comes second. (If I were a betting man, I’d put money on permafrost in hell over “Stairway to Heaven.”) Each vote would count equally, so you’d subtract the nays from the ayes to arrive at a net score. Imagine if the winner got 3 net votes instead of 3,000 or 3 million. We wouldn’t hear much talk of a mandate then!

Well, maybe we would. These are politicians we’re talking about.

If we wanted things to get even crazier, we could treat candidates like ballot propositions and vote "yes" or "no" on every one of them!

One complication: We’d have to change “one man, one vote” to “one man, two votes.”

So, as an alternative, we could retain the single vote — but give voters the choice of whether to vote for one candidate or against another?

RELEVANT AGAIN

Either way, the system would likely be a boon to two kinds of politician: moderates (aka centrists) and third-party candidates.

With radicals and true believers on both sides voting against their opposite numbers, the vast American center that’s often drowned out by all the shouting from the extremes might be able to gain a little clout by staying quiet. Third-party candidates would benefit, too, from flying under the radar (which they’re often very good at, despite their aspirations to the contrary.) A modest number of positive votes coupled with almost no negatives might just be enough to win it.

Would such a system result in more positive campaigning, because fewer candidates would want to risk getting too many “no” votes? Or would it give rise to even more vicious smear campaigns against the candidate viewed as the greatest threat?

Those are interesting questions.

CONSEQUENCES

Either way, candidates would have to think even more strategically than they do now, which could be even more fun to watch for political rubberneckers than it is now. We might as well post a traffic sign that reads “Warning: political pileup ahead.” For those who view politics as blood sport, this would be more fun than a trip to the Roman Colosseum in its heyday.

We voters would have to cogitate a little more, too. Do we vote for the candidate we like most or against the candidate we fear most? Or do we vote against someone else because that would be the biggest help to our favored candidate or party?

Delicious, isn’t it? There are all sorts of permutations and possible scenarios to consider.

I’ll leave you to consider the possibilities … and to wonder if this is a serious proposal or whether it’s all just tongue in cheek.

Sorry, but I’m not going to tell you. Instead, I’ll leave you with the same piece of advice that’s given to voters every time they enter the voting booth: You decide.