It is not specified in the constitution to that the USA must use a winner take all system for the electoral college, federal, state, or local elections. Our government at all levels could change this any time they wish. But what incentive do our two bloated parties have to support this move for democracy, when it clearly puts their political power in jeopardy? The change can come from within our governmental framework, but there is much work to be done.

Accepting that you want to change the system from within (and the only other option is revolution) the best time for change, real or superficial, is during elections. Concerned citizens should be happy to vote out incumbent Republicans and Democrats in favor of Independent candidates who have only two priorities: 1) Push electoral reform for better democracy and representation of all Americans, and 2) return to the majority opinion of their constituents on all other issues.

The Obama vs Romney election will be massive, expensive, dirty, and likely affected by a third party (or more), bringing the problems discussed earlier with Perot and Nader. Thus, the focus on the House and Senate seems a better direction to push a third party coalition, given the difficulty of overcoming strategic voting in the presidential election.

There are many direct and indirect goals achieved through the electoral process. Running Independent candidates changes the dialogue of the election, allowing more open discourse and information. It can force candidates to modify their positions, clarify their voting record, and be held accountable by their constituents.

At the same time, increasing pressure on incumbents of the established parties may encourage some to run Independent. And most importantly, Independent candidates in the House and Senate have taken seats from the Duopoly Parties before. Taking votes or seats from either established party in favor of democratic electoral reform is the goal.

The coalition must analyze each state’s ballot measures to determine the best route forward. All the House seats and a third of the Senate seats up for election in 2012. In some states, the coalition could form a party to appear on the ballot. In others, a candidate must be run independently. It is very unlikely the coalition could get on every ballot, but through information campaigning and media access, the coalition may be able to affect every election through write-in ballots and altering the dialogue of running politicians.

The goal of the coalition is to run as many candidates as possible, with the sole objective of electoral reform. For independent or coalition members elected, all other issues will be addressed accordingly with their constituents’ majority opinion.

I am aware of the logistical problems: Each state has different rules for registering an independent candidate or new party on the ballot. The earliest deadlines are very soon and laws are rewritten constantly. There are fees associated with registering in many states, or signature requirements, and sometimes very little flexibility. There are some rules that require all voters to receive a list of independent candidates names, but without being on the ballot, it will be a very difficult information campaign fought against the status quo.

Each state will need to be mobilized independently based on their ballot or write-in rules.

It is not specified in the constitution to that the USA must use a winner take all system for the electoral college, federal, state, or local elections. Our government at all levels could change this any time they wish. But what incentive do our two bloated parties have to support this move for democracy, when it clearly puts their political power in jeopardy? The change can come from within our governmental framework, but there is much work to be done.

Advertisements