Imagine if your telephone had a hand crank and linked into a party line, your radio was a giant console that got static reception, movies were silent, vehicles were pulled by horses, and air travel was limited to barnstorming pilots in biplanes. Of course, all this would be totally archaic in our age of the Internet, Interstate and iPhone. In the past 100 years, everything in our lives has changed ... everything, that is, except arguably the most important thing -- the way we choose our nation's leader.
Our current nominating system dates back to 1910, when the first presidential primary was held in Oregon. At the time, this was a radical step to take the nominating process away from political bosses. Now, a century later, we're overdue for another radical step.
Our current system is bordering on the absurd, providing comic relief for comedians and pundits worldwide. It all starts with Iowa, a state with less than one percent of the nation's population, which holds a caucus that is nonbinding and, in the case of the Democrats, doesn't even use secret ballots. One week later, the attention shifts to New Hampshire, a state with less than one-half of one percent of all Americans, which holds the first primary. After that, the process gets even more curious and convoluted.
This very unsystematic system is random, chaotic and undemocratic. It's truly effective at just one thing: forcing candidates to cater to supporters with the most extreme views in that particular party and the biggest pocketbooks.
There is painful irony in all of this, since it is taking place in an age when digital technology is making everything else in our lives more efficient, more accessible, more competitive and, yes, more democratic.
Just look at my field of entertainment. I started out working as a page at NBC. I thought I had won the lottery because I had managed to land a job at one of the nation's three television networks, which were then watched by virtually every American. Today there are hundreds of television channels (though not a lot of page jobs), and anyone with a computer, a video camera and a funny cat can create their own "network" and broadcast to millions of people around the world on the Internet.
Similarly, people living anywhere from New York City to New Amsterdam, Indiana (population 1) can comparison shop for the best bargains, access an unlimited number of books and periodicals, conduct free video chats with people halfway around the globe, or just sit back and listen to their own personal radio station on Pandora.
Of course, there has been a lot of trial-and-error to get to this stage. And it's all still evolving, as old models continue to be disrupted and replaced with new ones.
So, this year, let's do some real disrupting. We have it in our power to do some serious party crashing. It is important to remember that nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of a two-party system. This was not envisioned by the Founding Fathers, who would likely scratch their powder-wigged heads at the circus our nominating system has become.
This is why I am supporting a non-profit, non-partisan organization called Americans Elect which, this June, will be conducting the first national online primary. You can go to www.americanselect.org for the details, but the bottom line is that, with a click of your mouse, you can become a delegate and help nominate a well-qualified candidate who will appear on the ballot nationwide, resulting in a genuine three-way race for the presidency.
To help ensure that this candidate will be a problem-solver who represents the great majority of American society rather than fringes or the special interests, he or she will be required to pick a running mate from a different party. For example, if the candidate is a Republican, the running mate must be a Democrat or an Independent. The Americans Elect candidate will be on every ballot in every state, will campaign across the country, will appear in all the debates, and, though certainly a long shot, just might become the next President of the United States. And, regardless of the outcome, Americans Elect will help the public accept the digital political world so that, in 2016, we can have a more perfect democracy.
And let's be clear. The goal of Americans Elect is not to simply find a clever new use for all those silicon chips dancing in our devices. The goal is to have better government. Poll after poll has shown that most Americans are in broad agreement on most of the major issues of our day. But we are burdened with a system that gives a bullhorn to the smallest voices and makes the majority feel unheard.
Americans Elect gives all of us our voices back, and our system its self-respect again. America has always prided itself on being a forward-looking nation. Yet our election system is mired in the past. Just eight years ago, the presidency was decided by some dangling pieces of paper on ballots poorly punched by some unwary Floridians. Surely, we can do better. We can rescue our election system from the horse-and-buggy era and infuse it with the dynamism of our digital age. It's happening now. It's as close as your computer. The future is just a click away.
A version of this post first appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
This would also be better to carry out in 2012, when the Presidency is truly up for grabs.
We'll see.
I personally feel that until we abolish the "party" system altogether and be allowed to vote for a person (to include the VP) and that Congress & Senate pay be returned to the individual State that they have been elected to represent, also abolish any and all PACs & lobbyists. Stop being the "best government that money can buy". Wake up people. Everyone has been taking control over us for a long time, and it will continue as long as we allow it. J
And in Florida 3 candidates gave us Rubio as moderate/liberal votes were divided... Thats happened in Maine for the Governor and across the country..
Then there is the way the Senate/house power is determined by the majority...
Multiple candidates/parties work in a parlimentry form of government, not so much here. Its not like there havent been 3rd parties and several attempts.
Forcing people to make a choice between two, yes sometimes bad alternatives isnt so bad and its normal thru life.
WE cant get two parties to work together... just wait till you see three in action!
What this means, in all likelihood that what is now a very minority party, the repubs would win national elections...The green party affect again, where you can lose the popular vote as Bush did by a lot and still be President. A person winning 33.5% of the vote couuld win 100% of a states delegates..
Now if this is where, the winner must get over 50% OF THE POPULAR VOTE, OR THERE MUST BE A SECOND RUNOFF ELECTION BETWEEN THE TOP TWO, THEN THAT WOULD BE WORKABLE.
Before going this route, you would have to get rid of the electorial college, go popular vote and have runoffs... or infact, like the Green Party, they ended up worse off.
Regards
If Ralph Nader hadn't run, would the media have taken Al Gore's quote, "While in Congress, I took the initiative..." to mean that he sponsored the legislation that allowed the internet to come into exitence, and not that he invented it?? Was Nader the reason the media inflated the importance of Gore's sighing in one debate? If you took a good hard look at the way the media treated Gore, it's as if they were "Limbaugh dancing, " bending over backwards in hopes ol' Rush wouldn't find something to whine about in the inch their shoulders are off the floor. It may be that Gore lost fewer votes to technicalities than Nader got, but I have no doubt that if the Democrats had debunked the "liberal media" lie, Gore would have gotten a majority of the Florida vote--perhaps enough to knock off the weakest Republican Senarot who won that year. (Rick Santorum.)
Rubio did win a majority, something the Conventionally Wise didn't acknowledge. It may be that the "Vote for the Second Worst" crowd drove down turnout by their bungled attempt to get Kendrick Meek out of the race, but that can't be proven one way of the other. I do suspect that the drive to get Meek out depressed turnout for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Alex Sink, who lost by 52,00 votes out of 5 million cast.
Some of you may remember when a total outsider belonging to neither party by the name of Ross Perot ran against Clinton and George Bush Senior.
He shot way ahead in the polls as both Democrats and Republicans deserted their parties to get him elected. It was a time of excitement in America. People were everywhere getting him signed up to be a candidate. The coffee shops and street corners were filled with people putting their signatures down to have him run.
Within a couple of months he was the far distant front-runner without spending money on campaigning or advertising. It was all word of mouth and at a time when the web was still very young.
People turned out for him because they trusted him, thought him an excellent businessman and had a genuine belief that he knew where to take the Nation.
This should encourage all of us. He proved it can be done. True, he later dropped out of the race because of threats to his daughter and realized he didn't want to take the risks that come with the office, but in the process he proved several things.
Voters will desert their party for a real choice. The war-chest of campaign money isn't vital and best of all he proved that the good-ole-boy-two-party-system comes crumbling down overnight when the people make up their mind to do something.
Let's use an example for a third party candidate that we might want to vote for... Say it's either a Ron Paul or a Ralph Nader.
Okay we'll use Ron Paul to make it simple. Then we'll say Obama is the Democrat and Romney the Republican when election day appears.
On Election day using the "Weighted Preference Vote", my First Preference is for Ron Paul. I then mark my "Second Preference" for Obama.
If Ron Paul doesn't get enough "First Preference" votes to be elected, my Second Preference of using my vote will go to Obama and is counted as my vote.
If Romney has enough votes to outweigh the number of Second Preference votes for Obama, then Romney wins. But if Romney doesn't have enough votes to outweigh the Second Preference vote for Obama, then Obama wins and visa-verse.
Here's the good part; If there were enough "First Preference" votes for Ron Paul, then he wins.
I'm not totally certain exactly how the Australian system works so if any readers can edit or improve on it, please feel free to do so.
Your Vote is only counted once in all this. Just because you stated that You Preferred Candidate A , but would take Candidate B, It Still Falls within the "One Person One Vote" Rule in our country.
I've always thought technologies influence on the way we elect politicians would be a little different.
Campaigns are the problem, as I see it. They cost money, attract the attention of special interests that rush to fill that financial void. A .gov website would become the sole source of "campaign" activities, candidates would be displayed side-by-side with wiki-like descriptions of policy and philosophy authored by the candidate or their staff followed by fact-checked rebuttals.
Video-feeds of debates and public-speaking events could be attached, with nothing remotely like a campaign ad in sight. Equal exposure for all candidates.
You could fund it by selling links and advertising space to the Media. If a website/newspaper/television network has an interview or piece on the candidate they could pay to have it displayed using the same website-hits ad model that most of the internet uses now.
Equal exposure strikes the party system at it's roots, eliminating the necessity for pooled campaign resources. The financial bar of running for office now becomes so low that anyone with a mind to could attempt it. Parties would be replaced with mutable alliances of like-minds and mutual respect instead of strictly-defined politics.
The boogie-man of ballot security and legitimacy makes any online voting a pipe-dream at this point and doesn't even address the causes of the issues with our current system.
CAMPAIGNS, that's the ticket.
Your politicians are out to lunch for more than half the election cycle. I bet that suits the bureaucrats just fine as they get down to business with the lobbyists to get the deals done.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
SECTION 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,
as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10, "Hence it is that such [pure] democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
The free expression of ideas and openness to innovation are both quintessentially American ideals, and it warms my heart to see both in evidence here. While I have my doubts regarding the interent as a political forum - text without nonverbal communication tends to bring out the worst in people, and we risk confusing voters with spambots - why not take this concept out for a test drive and see what comes of it? Science, at its best, is about forcing Nature to reveal truths instead of speculating endlessly and fruitlessly about them. For these reasons and simply out of enthusiasm for any and all efforts to renew out precious democracy, I thank and congratulate you for your efforts. You deserve to feel proud of them.
And get rid of the winner-takes-it-all -system in other elections. Maybe then there could be vibrant democracy and real alternatives. Maybe then people would vote for the party they like, not the party they dislike less.