End Third Party Impotence

[PatriotsUnite]

I have a solution for what I call 3rd Party Impotence. The problem is that although a majority of Americans disagree with the two major political parties in this country, they feel as though they are either wasting their vote, or enabling a candidate that they disagree with more by casting a vote of conscience to emerging parties. As you all know the Florida election of 2000 brought national attention to the state, but as a result we (Floridians) now have an electronic system of voting. Using Florida as launch pad if you will, I propose that we (and that means you specifically) support a measure that utilizes an untapped potential in electronic voting. I believe that Florida in particular is the best place to gain national recognition for offering a solution that frustrates so many voters. We were embarrassed in 2000, but the bright side of this is that Florida will be looked at hard when controversial issues such as I am suggesting are brought to the public.

Simply put, we push for a system in Florida (first) that allows the voter to select a primary candidate, and then a secondary choice to transfer that vote to if the primary candidate fails to achieve 33% of the vote. By doing so, people who normally only agree with third party platforms but vote otherwise, could vote their conscience with confidence that their vote would not be ultimately either wasted or seen as support for the greater of two evils.
In 1992 it was a three dog fight, George Bush Sr., William Jefferson Clinton, and Ross Perot. On election day the results for the popular vote was:

Bush: 37.7% (How many Perot supporters voted out of fear in this category?)
Clinton: 43.3% (Note: George W. Bush received 48% in the 2000 election)
Perot: 19% (FYI, I voted for Perot)

Using this as an example, Bush probably would have beaten Clinton with the formula I prescribed above. And although we have no way of knowing now, I would suspect that in fact Perot would have won if my proposal was in place nationally. Given the formula I suggested, you could have cast a vote for Perot (many people wanted to, but didn't want either Bush or Clinton in office and knew the reality of the matter was vote up or down Democrat or Republican, or they FELT as though their vote was wasted). The acronym VOTE means Voice Of The Electorate. Was the voice of the electorate heard and counted? Or did people react out of fear of loosing, over a will and desire to win?

Secondly, as you are aware I am sure, delegates from each state actually elect a President. So the popular vote of the nation isn't on the table. If it were not so, Gore would be President right now as he won the actual popular vote in 2000, this isn't a democracy and is not how the system works - Read the Constitution! So it is a process. And knowing and working the process to ensure that the voice of the electorate is heard, counted and acted upon is my proposal.

Regarding the Constitutionality of the proposal, explain to me how it is not. Each state has it’s own laws that govern the selection of delegates to the national convention, who then in turn elect the President. In each state it is a winner take all scenario. Whoever wins the state’s popular vote, gets to send the allotted number of delegates to represent the single party that won.

In conclusion, I am suggesting that Florida take advantage of it’s in place electronic voting system and apply the formula. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest they do it just as a test of the proposal so that when the election was over, the people could see what the true voice of the electorate was, and then compare it to the election results. The two party system that is ruling the current system would have many issues to contend with. Most notably they would have to be honest about who they are and what they believed in, as the people could boldly vote for the person best fit their beliefs politically. Hoping and wishing for change is a noble gesture, but is impotent when results are involved. The system is corrupt and stacked for the status quo to remain in power just as it is. I am suggesting a revolution in that arena, where the voice of the electorate is heard state by state. It is conceivable that some states would accept the proposal and others would not. In fact, it is VERY likely. But it is the state that controls it’s delegates sent to the national convention, and I stand firm in my proposal that Florida lead the way and show the rest of the country that the voice of the electorate can be heard and counted. Not just dreamed of.

FYI, I posted this from my webiste www.patriotsunite.com/ where I rant about this and other topics in my commentary section for those interested...

[Ted]

One solution to this problem is simply that people need to realize that third party candidates have no real shot at the presidency. They never had one. It's a better idea to vote for the candidate you believe will better serve the country and who is truly capable of winning.

[PatriotsUnite]

That was my entire point about writing the article. We are settling for what the system hands us as it has grown out of control with power. A way to bring some of that ppower back to the people is to enable the thrid party voice, and force the powers that be to listen to what the people really want, or face defeat. In the end both parties would have to listen to thier third party bretheren, and stay the course that the poeple want, not what leadership of the GOP or DNC wants. Or in other owrds, it would be a good thing to strengthen the voice of the electorate.

[PatriotsUnite]

My motivation is to keep the Republican Party froming moving any farther left, and for the left to keep on truckin! In this scenario, the "center" goes for the GOP as they match their values, and the left start waiving a red flag with a cycle and hammer on it. It just makes the difference more pronounced, and the candidates more able to be themselves without fear of loosing. As well as introducing ideas such as this one that can be good for the country! Our forefathers couldn't have dreampt of doing it, they didn't have the luxury of electronic voting or could have conceived of it. Does that mean we shouldn't adjust to times and take advantage of it?

[Nathan]

Run offs in the U.S. are never going to happen.

Opposition to run offs has SOLID bipartisan support =P



What ever happened to the reform party, anyway? oh i remember... the pat buchanan conservatives invaded, nominated their leader, and promply tanked the party in the wall for their friend bush.

So much for "reform"

[PatriotsUnite]

You got it partly correct. It got it's momentum through Ross Perot, and lost it when he went away. The problem with the Reform Party was that they never proposed the kind of "reform" that I was speaking of. They were the Ross Party, not the Reform Party. Are you happy with the current system? Does two choices that evolved into "lets see who can appease more voters" to vote for me because I promise this or that sound like the government you want? If so, you are in the majority right now. What I prposed is to allow "new" ideas into the debate and races, without us having to grow more billion dollar "promises". It takes vision to look down the road and see where you are being led. Sheeple, as Michael Savage so often calls many, are the Hellen Kellers of politics. They lack vision, sight, hearing and every other sense that allows them visionary insight into where we are going and what we can do.