Voting machines are not the only problem with the American electoral process. Please join me as I examine three other voting problems and suggest their possible solutions:
Problem #1
Our legislators spend more time pandering to special interests, manufacturing re-election campaign stunts, and trying to separate rich people from their money than they spend reading and researching legislation. They aren't doing their jobs, and we are paying the price for it.
A genius once said the primary purpose of any organization is not the stated goal of that organization. The primary purpose of an organization is to maintain itself at all costs. No kidding!
If no candidate could serve more than one term, however, this problem would be solved. There would be no election-year shenanigans to persuade voters to re-elect a legislator... just impetus to do their jobs and do them well while they have the chance.
So my first proposal is strict one-term limits for all legislators.
Of course, this would give a lot of power to the parties, because suddenly the parties would be responsible for providing continuity of purpose. That might be seriously problematic in a strong two party system - which brings me to...
Problem #2
is anyone really happy with this two-party system? the false dichotomy of two powerful parties forces everyone to vote against the candidate they hate most, rather than for the candidate they like best. It's a fear-based voting system and ensures that alternative ideas remain sidelined, which is basially unAmerican.
Therefore, I'd like to propose instant runoff voting. if you are not familiar with it, the details are available here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
and here:
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
Instant runoff voting allows everyone to have their Green and Democrat, too. It gives voice to Americans whose ideals aren't necessarily served by one of our current parties. And speaking of giving voice to Americans...
Problem #3
Our voices have been drowned out in the shrieking clamor for campaign money. When dollars buy the media and the media delivers votes, those with the most dollars invariably win elections. This is a problem for those of us who are not rich and thus, no longer represented.
I believe it would be best to remove money from the campaign process. It is popular to think of money as being (or symbolizing) "free speech", but this is as spurious as the idea that a corporation is (or symbolizes) a human being. Puhleeze.
In reality, free speech belongs to those candidates who have equal access to the tools for communication. Those tools are currently prohibitively expensive, and our voting system has turned into a corrupt legislative prostitute auction - money for votes.
From now on, any candidate who can garner a minimum level of support should recieve a standardized "basket" of government-provided campaign funds and services with which to run their campaign. Every campaign that meets the qualification standards would have the same resources - no more and no less. This would include a set amount of money for travel and advertising, and enough TV and radio time to explain their platform and have a few debates. What each candidate chose to do with their funds given the limitations set by everyone having the same amount of money would be telling, and the people would have a splendid opportunity to actually learn about each candidates' ideals without the distractions currently provided by special interest group and corporate campaign money.
Basically, we deserve to hear what are candidates actually have to say. We also deserve to be able to vote for candidates we like. We deserve to be heard, and we deserve candidates who are more interested in actually doing their jobs well than in being re-elected. If we like and believe in democratic rule by the people, then it would be a great idea to tackle these issues sooner rather than later.
Our voting processes aren't set in stone. This is an old democracy, and some new ideas have come along that are worth a look. These are three of my favorites.