Voter apathy is well known and reported in the United States, but no one seems to care too much about it. Everyone realizes that people don't vote because there are no options: the two major parties are paid for by the same companies and the independent candidates don't have a chance.
We can't give in to apathy and dejection just because the pickings are so slim! Things have become too structured, rigid, and predictable, far from reflecting the chaos of reality. We need a Discordian solution almost as much as we need a Discordian candidate. Eris herself would have my vote except for her predilection for getting drunk and missing meetings.
Complacency is a virture of the rich, fat, and weak. I'm fat and weak, but stone broke paying for the accoutrements of status in the modern like clothing, pizza, and broadband internet access. But whereas fatness and weakness rarely contribute to richness, richness and fatness inevitably lead to weakness. America as a nation earned its complacency long ago by this route.
As usually happens when confronted with a plethora of solutions as is available to this pandemic of complacents, we are oft forced to choose between the pragmatic and idealistic. This naive collapse of the state vector squanders our neuro-empathic connection with the universe offered by our understanding of quantum dynamics and popular advertising. If we can be convinced that pisswater with alcohol in it can both "Taste Great" and be "Less Filling" there is no reason why we can employ pragmatic idealism (or in more desperate cases, idealistic pragmatism) to solve the complacademic scourge on democracy.
Some have suggested a weighted voting system where voters are given, say, 10 points to vote with. They can give all 10 points to one candidate, 1 point to their 10 favorite candidates (or even 1 point to the 10 candidates they hate, if they are so disposed I suppose) or any other combination. This sort of flexible vote expression theoretically gives voters the opportunity to vote the candidate of their choice but still give a little bit to the candidate that actually has a chance to win (who by coincidence is usually fat, rich, and weak).
Other schemes similar to this would allow voters to vote for 2, 3, or more candidates in a ranking order (first choice, second choice, etc.). Candidates receive, say, 5 points for a "First" vote, 3 points for a "Second" and 1 point for "Third." Whoever gets the most points, wins. This too permits voters to vote for their longshot candidate First but still drop in a bit of weight for the Republican/Democrat candidate.
These systems have a fair amount of appeal to me and I figure they probably would do a better job of expressing people's sentiment at the polls, but they are chicken-shit solutions to the problem.
I can't accept this notion that voting for so-called 3rd party candidates somehow "takes away" votes from the majority candidates. Takes away? Talk about complacency! A vote is intended to express your opinion and beliefs and should be used to select a candidate that most closely reflects those. Your vote shouldn't be used in a negative sense to block an opposition candidate. As much as it feels like it, we are NOT forced to choose between the lesser of two evils for president.
Vote for who you think would be the best candidate, even if you think that it means that the worst of the two evils will end up winning. Less than half the eligible voters in this country vote because they feel like they are wasting their vote because of sentiment like this.
I think the easiest way to change things tough is to simply add the option "None of the Above" to the ballot. If NotA gets the most votes, toss out the candidates on that ballot and run the election again in two weeks. Simple. Don't try to whine that you can't have an election in 2 weeks. Countries all over the world don't have planned election schedules like we have in the US. And surprisingly, they don't have 18 month campaigns either.
Giving voters a NotA option truly opens up the field. Having the ability to invalidate all the efforts of the rich, fat, and weak overnight would bring droves of NotA voters to the polls. Of course the chaos that would ensure after a few elections cycles like this would probably wear on some of them and they'd begin to vote for actual candidates. NotA would get them back in the voting flow and also do a damned good job of injecting a needed amount of chaos (Hail Eris!) back into domestic life.
One other nice side effect of this idea is that it is an easy litmus test to see what people believe. If anyone opposes this idea, they are obviously an agent of the corporate system of complacency and shouldn't be trusted.
So spread the word and get it on the ballot: None of the Above! NotA!
Posted by Nutrimentia at March 27, 2003 09:37 AM | TrackBack