Any Vote is Never Wasted

So Ron Paul, who received more votes in just the Pennsylvania Republican Primary (129,323) than Gov Palin (Unqualified R AK) has ever received in ALL her campaigns combined, has decided to back “None of the Above”. Here are some excerpts from his recent National Press Club speech.

“The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever…The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues…Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties. There is only one way that these issues can get the attention they deserve: the silent majority must become the vocal majority. The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.”

This is a good thing as far as I am concerned. We need more Presidential candidates and Independents. I don’t agree with everything the Mr. Paul says, but then again who agrees with EVERYTHING any candidate says. The idea is to elect the most qualified person (not the Party). I still agree with George Washington, in his Farewell Address, that Political Parties should not be allowed. Moreover, all of this lets me harp on real election reform that is needed in this Country. I would have two proposals, only one would require Federal approval. The other only requires individual States to make a stand.
The first is no more Parties. No more expensive conventions where lobbyists and big corporations wine and dine elected officials. It just leads to corruption. Party conventions were needed at one time to bring everyone together to introduce the candidate. In today’s era of 24/7 news, they are an unnecessary tool.
That said, I would have two elections for President. The first would occur on the first Saturday after Labor Day and would be a “Primary”. Anyone than can get on the ballot would have an opportunity to be elected regardless of any party or idea. I would not care if there were 30 candidates. If no one gets 50% of the Primary vote, the top three (or 4) would then appear on a November ballot (we can keep the Tuesday if we want). The top electoral vote getter wins. This change would require US Congressional approval. Moreover, all it really changes is the party system and number of candidates on a ballot.

The second part: No more winner takes all Electoral College votes. This is already done in 2 States (Maine & Nebraska). And there is a growing movement toward this form in other States. The electoral votes would be cast according to the winner of the popular vote in each Congressional District with the two at large electoral votes going to the winner of the overall State popular vote. This is a change that can be enacted by ANY State on their own. I know Illinois Politics best so it is the easiest one to use as an example. In 2004, John Kerry received 21 (winner-take-all) electoral votes from the State of Illinois. He only won the popular vote in 16 of 102 counties. However, the fact of the matter is, whatever Chicago (and Cook County) do, it pretty much dictates how the State will allocate its electoral votes. After all the talk in the last two elections about disenfranchised voters, I find it hard to believe that we still have a winner take all system. It is the true meaning of disenfranchised voter. Outside of Cook County, your vote does not matter. Here is how the 2004 electoral votes would have played out if we used what is known as the “Tiered” system. John Kerry would have received 12 electoral votes (10 districts and 2 for State wide popular vote). George Bush would have received 9 electoral votes. The total is still the same (21 electoral votes). It is only how they are allocated that changes.
This system would have prevented all the craziness of the 2000 election (maybe not the outcome) because we would be only waiting on 1 electoral vote from the Palm Beach Congressional District as opposed to 27 for the whole State. And remember…Any State can decide to use this system. It does not require Federal approval.
This would give a voter the feeling (at least) of having more of an input into the Presidential election process. It would also mean the candidates would have to really get into the grassroots of America, and talk to real people. No more picking States with high electoral vote numbers and only concentrating there. EVERY Congressional District would become important. There would still be 538 total Electoral College votes. Instead of only appealing to 10 or 15 States with large populations. Candidates would have to appeal to 270 Congressional Districts to become President.
I know this will not happen for the 2008 Presidential Election, and the chances of the Federal Government changing their part are slim. They are too entrenched in the two Party System to allow an open Primary. However, the change to the Tiered Electoral College votes is a local/State level initiative that can be done. It just requires citizens (read-VOTERS) to push their local State Representatives to make the change. Illinois may embark on a State Constitutional Convention (required by Law every 20 years to be on the ballot) so the chance to make this possible, at least in this State, is NOW.