The two party system facilitates corruption. Special interests need only contribute to the
campaigns of the two frontrunners to cover their bets. Further, I suspect money alone can create a
frontrunner. Although campaign financing
reform is necessary, it is not as fundamental as majority rule, and majority
rule may preclude the need for those reforms that could overreach and threaten
free speech.
I submit if we opened up the electoral process, more
Americans would register and vote as they would know their votes count. Americans may be apathetic, but that is not
the basic problem. The basic problem is
the limitations of plurality rule.
Only 51.3% of the voting age population voted in the last
presidential election. Gore won the
popular vote with a plurality of 48.4% against Bush with 47.9% and Nader with
2.7%. Bush won the electoral vote by
only 5 votes, receiving 271 against Gore's 266.
If we had runoff elections, most all of Nader's supporters would have
voted for Gore giving him a clear majority and almost certainly the presidency
even with the electoral college. (2)
Americans need real political power to effect change. Even mass movements are marginalized in a
corrupt system. Majority rule isn't a
cure-all, but it is a major step in the right direction. By simply providing run-off elections we can
create majority rule, create a multi-party system, enfranchise third party
voters, and enfranchise third candidate voters.
It appears we can implement majority rule with changes in
state and/or federal law. We do not need
to amend the Constitution. Under the
U.S. Constitution, state legislatures have the primary responsibility to set
the manner of holding both presidential and congressional elections. Alternately, Congress may alter the manner of
holding congressional elections.
(3)
Fight for true democracy here in
Sources:
1) Plurality
(from Webster's 9 th new collegiate dictionary definition 3c) - a
number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates
that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than
half the total votes cast.
2) Source - www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
3) U.S.
Constitution Article I Section 4 (1) [Control of congressional elections] - The
times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except
as to the places of choosing Senators.
U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 (2) [Appointment and
qualifications of presidential electors] -- Each state shall appoint, in such
manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors"
Both
4) See a
tutorial on instant runoff voting (IRV) at http://www.chrisgates.net/irv/
See the following website for information on proportional
representation: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm
Strategies
Any change in the two party system will be impossible
without the acquiescence of one or both of the main parties. We must make changes from within these
parties, recognizing these parties' power structures have a vested interest in
maintaining the status quo. They will
have to give lip service to this cause but will likely take little action, or
worse, sabotage our efforts.
The Democratic party could enhance its membership and
power by enlisting third party members with promises to introduce legislation
for instant runoff voting (IRV). The
same can be said of individual democratic candidates. The party and Democratic candidates should
support IRV as it will allow liberal, third party members to vote in runoff
elections for Democrats.
Third party members (TPM's) could register as
Democrats and vote in primaries for Democratic peace candidates that, at a
minimum, support instant runoffs. In
A protest vote similar to the last presidential election
would make it clear to the Democratic leadership; the party must change,
support IRV, or it will continue to lose elections.
In the Democratic presidential primary, a candidate who
receives less than 15% of the vote will be denied delegates. The number of delegates he would have
received will be distributed proportionally among the remaining candidates
including unjust war Democrats. Should
your preferred candidate have less than 15% of the polls before the election,
consider voting for your alternate. This
system is archaic and undemocratic but until we change it, we must optimize the
effectiveness of our votes with a full understanding of the system.
In state level voting, vote for Democrats who commit to
introducing majority rule legislation, and don't vote for those who won't so
commit.
A close partnership between Democrats and third parties
would be mutually beneficial, and in fact, beneficial to the nation.
Recommendations for the Kucinich Campaign:
I recommend Kucinich commit to introducing federal legislation requiring all states use instant runoff voting (IRV) in congressional elections. Such support should win him the votes of third party members and possibly third party endorsements.
I think it's healthy for third parties to run candidates for
President and to use those candidacies to sell their platforms, but ask those
candidates to endorse Kucinich in the general elections in return for the commitment
to IRV.
Questions and Issues:
We need constitutional lawyers to tell us exactly what state
and federal laws have to be changed.
We should work to change CA law with regard to both state
and federal elections. CA could
influentially follow the lead of
State legislatures are empowered under the U.S. Constitution
to set the manner of federal elections.
Would a CA IRV initiative be legal under the U.S. Constitution? Even if an initiative is not effective for
federal elections, it can bring IRV to state elections. Why not begin a CA initiative process
immediately?
The Green party already has an IRV plank. Would they be willing to lead the way with
the help of different party members and the peace movement?
