|
Separate Voting
for Parties and Candidates-
Public financing of elections and limiting political contributions or spending only addresses the symptoms that start in the second part of the election process. The cause of our problems with the rest of the process comes from the first part of the election cycle, establishing the status of the parties. Under current federal law, a party must get 25 % of the votes cast for candidates in the previous election to qualify for major party status and a primary in the current election. Party status and participation in a primary are dependent on a vote. Voters can't vote for a current major party candidate while casting a separate vote to establish a third party for the next election. These are two separate issues, for two separate elections. Voters must sacrifice their vote on one issue in one election or the other issue in the other election. It is unconstitutional to restrict free speech ( voting is an act of free speech ) unless that speech causes harm. Casting separate votes for parties and candidates would not harm anyone. Preventing separate voting harms every voter by restricting their free speech every time they vote. It harms many citizens that do not vote by creating the impression that only the current major party candidates can win elections. This discourages many people that do not support the current major parties from voting because the change they desire does not seem attainable. Because only the current major party candidates can win the current election, only the current major parties get enough candidate votes to achieve major party status for the next election. This ensures that only the current major party candidates can win the next election, protecting the two party system in perpetuity. I call this the Cycle of Inevitability ( see chart ). Separate voting can break this undemocratic and unconstitutional cycle. When voters can cast a separate vote to establish third parties to major party status, third parties could qualify for a primary. Even two or three third parties each gaining 10-15 % of the party vote, with another 10 % not voting to establish any party could put one or both of the current major parties below the 25 % required for major party status ( see separate voting chart ). Either way, third party candidates would have the same ballot access and credibility as the current major party candidates and with that the ability to attract the contributions and media coverage necessary to be competitive. Establishing competitive third parties would destroy the gerrymandered districts that protect incumbents, significantly reducing the 95 % re-election rate. Many voters would participate in the primaries if a third party or two qualified. 50% turnout for primary elections is not unattainable. Many non-voters would at least participate in the general election because they would believe that the change they want is possible. Voting for current major party candidates while casting a separate vote to establish a third party for the next election would be a safe way to send a powerful message. If the current major parties respond, voters will continue to support them. If not, voters will have the option of replacing them with candidates from parties that will respond. Competition is the most basic and important ingredient of democracy. Separate voting would introduce the necessary competition that is currently lacking in our political process. |
|
Unlike the fatal flaw in most other campaign reform proposals, separate voting does not require the current major parties to pass legislation that will bring about their own demise or reduce the influence of their large contributors. It can be achieved through a constitutional challenge to the law that prevents separate voting for parties and candidates, making it the only approach likely to succeed. With the only alternatives to the current major parties of any significance being the Green and Libertarian parties, citizens are reluctant to support or join a political party. These parties seem to be controlled by people with more extreme versions of the policies that average citizens don't like about the current major parties. A party controlled by average people may be more appealing ( How average people can control political parties is covered in campaign finance reform ). The cold hard reality is that the current system is party based and it will take a party based solution to elect enough candidates that will pass legislation to change it. The current major parties won't change it because it works for them and their large contributors. Jesse Ventura didn't run as an independent candidate. He ran as a candidate for the Independent Party in Minnesota. The fact that this party was already established as a competitive party on the state level was an important factor in his victory that is generally overlooked. I believe that once people hear about the idea of separate voting for parties and candidates that they will be very receptive to the idea. I polled about fifty people ( a little less than half friends and co-workers - many of the co-workers I never met before the day they were surveyed, and the rest were random door-to-door ). 4 out of 5 said if they could, they would vote for current major party candidates and cast a separate vote to establish a third party to increase their options for the next election. This is the same ratio as dentists that recommend Trident. 3 out of 4 that voted for current major party candidates in previous elections said they would vote to establish a third party for the next election. Every person that said they would not vote to establish a third party said other voters should be able to. You can help show support for separate voting by filling out a separate voting survey and/or using a political contribution voucher ( explained later ). |
|
Ralph Nader said citizens that want competitive third parties have to contribute a minimum of 100 dollars and commit to 100 hours of volunteering per year to build a viable third party. People don't want to spend hundreds of hours volunteering, to raise hundreds of millions of dollars, to run hundreds of candidates that can't win, over a period of 20 years to get to the point where the Green and Libertarian parties are now, which is as far as the current system will allow. Just writing about it makes me not want to do it. The current major parties count on the futility of the current system to discourage citizens from supporting third parties, voting for third party candidates or even voting at all. When citizens can cast separate votes for parties and candidates, the Hundred Dollar Party ( and other third parties ) can run one national campaign that says vote to establish the party for the next election. When the party is established and qualifies for a primary, then we can run candidates that can win. This will save hundreds of millions of dollars and cut the time it takes to establish a competitive third party to one or two election cycles. Imagine that kind of efficiency applied to government programs and spending. Even if a third party doesn't achieve nationally recognized major party status, if 20 % or more of the voters in a particular state or congressional district voted to establish a third party it would give that party's candidates on the state level or in the congressional district the credibility to be competitive in the next election. That party could then target their resources in the next election to the states and districts that demonstrated support for their party. Candidates from several third parties in several states winning some of those elections would give their parties the credibility to achieve major party status for the next election. It would also be attacking the current major parties from more than one direction making it more difficult for them to defend against. It is even possible that the courts will rule that voters were denied their right to cast separate votes to establish a third party for the 2006 election and order a special election to establish the party status for 2006. This special election would have the added bonus of not having any candidates running, taking another advantage away from the current major parties. But this will require hiring a lawyer immediately. Lawyers require payment for services rendered, which brings us to the next category. |