What if Voters were Free to Chose?
07 Jan 2012 in Elections, GOVERNment, NewPosts
This article will discuss voiding the stranglehold of our “2 Party System”.
We’ll use Judge Andrew Napolitano to stir your mind and set the mood:
What IS this stranglehold? By various means, of which I don’t pretend to know all, the Dem-Reps have managed to assert a monopoly which serves to restrict the rights of citizens to freely vote their choice of either a party or their candidates.
This is hardly the first time – it’s been going on for decades. The Vote2012 campaigns are the finest current example. Ron Paul, being more libertarian than republican, is running well to perhaps win the republican nomination. With several candidates in the race, most are little better than “more of the same”, while Ron Paul stands outside that mainstream. It seems that the Rep Party bigwigs like that not at all, and so many of the party members are blindly loyal to their party– which of course it true of both parties.
Therefore, we see a great hue and cry that no matter who wins the republican nomination, all must vote for the republican presidential nominee. Why? Because otherwise you’re just voting for Obama. Of course that is a braindead falsehood. Any vote not for Obama, no matter who, is NOT a vote for Obama. Elementary, my dear Watson!
The many supporters of Ron Paul (my own feelings about him are rather mixed) are saying that, come the general election, that rather than vote for any other republican, they will write-in Ron Paul Further, despite that Ron Paul repeatedly says he will not run as a Libertarian or Independent, I think that if those chips come down, he will continue under another label.
So then America will face the problem of the Dem-Rep monopoly. Most remember when Ross Perot ran against Dem Clinton and Rep Bush I. Perot pulled a substantial vote, resulting in nobody winning the majority vote. Thus Clinton, not with a majority, but rather with only 43% of the total vote, became President.
TWO PROBEMS are thus obvious.
First, those who did break from the mold to vote for Perot found their votes wasted, and along with that, Perot probably got far fewer votes because the “rebels” who voted for him were fewer because so many don’t wish to waste their votes. Those are the too-many people who will vote for “the lesser of evils” rather than vote their Convictions and Principles. So every election results merely in “more of the same”, regardless of which Monopoly Party’s nominee might win.
Second, if our voting system merely provided for RUNOFF VOTING whenever nobody wins with a majority vote, this problem could not exist. The two-party monopoly is broken, and the door is wide open for other candidates to have an equal chance based upon the voter’s preference. The RunOff voting system merely eliminates those who got too few votes to make the RunOff Election. There would be various ways in which a proper law would make that determination.
There are also problems with State Election Laws which the Dem-Reps brought upon the citizens. Those may be different between states. In Arizona, the qualifications to establish a new party are heavy, and if that party does not get a substantial percentage of votes each election, if it wishes to continue it must re-qualify. Again, it serves to preserve the Dem-Rep monopoly under the guise of a “two party system”, despite that the differences between the parties has diminished to virtually meaningless. That’s another subject for another day.
Can we possibly manage a Constitutional Amendment or something otherwise to get Runoff Elections in place BEFORE Vote2012? If we don’t, the future of America becomes even bleaker if somehow the absence of Runoff Elections does result in reelecting the most dangerous so-called president America has ever endured.
60
Recent Comments