The title of this post sounds a lot like a high school essay assignment, and in some ways I feel like it could be. Election 2016 has much in common with adolescence-from the nasty name calling to the easily debunked fallacies, from the widespread rumors to the false friendships- that it would be more appropriate as a class election than one for the leader of this country. Yet as I realize this truth, I also finally understand that this election cycle deserves more than just contempt. Instead, Election 2016 should be celebrated, for in this election the fallacy of American excellence has finally been laid bare for all to see. The notion that American democracy is pure, that American voters are responsible, that Americans  want decent leaders, and that Americans as a people value equality, respect, tolerance, progress, and basic human goodness….all those ideals have been exposed as little more than window dressing at a bankruptcy liquidation sale.

We’ve known for some time now that our politics are broken. We’ve known that our media is corrupted. We’ve known that equality as an ideal we’re far from realizing. We’ve known all this and yet been pretending the opposite is the truth, blaming “the other side” as the cause of all misinformation and negativity while lapping up the same drivel from our own “truth bringers” as we demonize those who support whatever we don’t personally abide. These things didn’t happen overnight, but Election 2016 bubbled them all up to the surface in such a way as to force anyone paying attention to either admit that everything is broken or be exposed as a total tool living in a house of cards.

Republicans can no longer deny that their base is heavily populated by racists, bigots, hypocrites and liars.

Democrats can no longer deny that their base is heavily populated by nepotists, apologists, hypocrites and liars.

Libertarians, Greens, and Independents can’t deny that their groups are heavily populated by contrarians, deniers, excusers, hypocrites and liars.

The media can no longer pretend to be unbiased, truthful, thoughtful or investigative.

And America can no longer pretend to hold the high ground when it comes to democracy.

“Hold on there partner!” you might be saying to yourself as you read my condemnation of nearly every person around. I’m a (insert political persuasion here) and I’m not a (insert negative attribute here). Take a good long look in the mirror. Yes you are. And so am I if the truth is to be told.

We are all guilty of one or more of the aspects I’ve associated with the political persuasions listed above- and in some cases it’s just a part of human nature. At some point or another we have all told a lie or been part of a hypocritical conflict, decrying the position or behavior of another while secretly indulging our own internal demons. And while we’re not all racists, bigots, nepotists or contrarians, this election has exposed that a vast percentage of America is one or more of those things. We’re an unruly mob of ugliness when it comes to politics, and in some cases, when it comes to our deep beliefs too.

How else can you explain the tacit acceptance of the filth that Donald Trump puts forth daily? How else can you explain the ability to brush aside the barely legal activities of Hillary Clinton? How else can you explain the unrealistic positions of Johnson or Stein? How else can you explain the wavering of the great mass of “undecideds” who will throw in behind one of these candidates? When Hillary Clinton spoke of baskets of deplorable she should have included more than just the supporters of Trump- she should have included us all and put herself, Trump, and the other candidates at the top of the heap.

Listen, nobody is perfect, and I’m not expecting them to be, but let’s at least be honest with ourselves and recognize that what seems like a vile departure from decency is really just an unvarnished look behind the mask of who we really are. You can’t consider yourself a good religious person and then reduce the behavior of the two main candidates as mere foibles while decrying the other one as “the destruction of all that America stands for.” You can’t consider yourself to be intellectually honest and then craft excuses about why certain behavior should be overlooked because “that’s how it’s done” or “well the other side did it first.” What we have to recognize here, and to say out loud, is that America needs an intervention or we really will become that proverbial demagogue of international humanity.

It’s time to step back from our self-imposed brinksmanship and accept that we need to become better people. It’s time to stop making excuses for each other’s worst behavior while fomenting our own discord. It’s time to put an end to divisive politics for sure, but also to divisive living in general.

It;s OK to disagree on the amount of and proper use of taxes. It’s OK to debate whether or not we should provide support to other countries or explore outer space or how to educate our children or protect our citizens.

But it’s not OK to devalue each other based on race or gender or sexual orientation or personal religious beliefs. It’s not OK to support others who would divide us for their own personal gain. It’s not OK to turn away from the hypocrisy others only to embrace it for yourself.

All these things have been boiling under the surface of our “polite society” for far too long. Finally, thanks to the 2016 Presidential Election, we are seeing ourselves for who we are. It’s not a pretty picture and we have some serious work to do moving ahead. Our next president is going to be someone none of us should admire. Deal with it. But let’s perhaps take the next four years to actually make ourselves better-as people, as parties, as a country. Let’s work on us, and demand better than this from our leadership- political leaders, business leaders, spiritual leaders-and come back as a better country altogether.

I’ve voted at the same location for over five years. In those five years, I can not ever remember seeing more than about ten people at the poll at the same time as I was there. This morning I showed up at 6:57 AM and was greeted by a line of at least 60 people waiting to vote. As I got into the line, I couldn’t help but think to myself that this election was indeed something special. Oh sure, the media has portrayed this as an election like no other, and this is certainly true, if only because of the historic nature of the candidates. But it dawned on me that it was more than that.

The poll worker told me this morning that our small precinct usually was lucky to have about 23% voter turnout at any election. Today is going to be a record breaker.

As I waited in the line to get my ballot, I had a pleasant conversation with a man who originally comes from Arkansas. We wiled the time away with small talk and stories of our experiences. He was there with a relative, a first time voter who was excited to cast her first ballot. People in front and in back of me were smiling, actually happy to see a line at the poll, and no one was grumbling about the wait-a wait they have never experienced at this polling location before. To top it off, it’s raining buckets here today in Southern California, something that always makes the “beautiful people” a bit frumpy. Even the rain couldn’t dampen the spirits of an electorate ready to make history.

As we neared the table where we got our ballots, my line companion said something to me that made me think about how far we’ve come in this country. He told me that back where he came from, a small town in Arkansas, when he was a kid, people like him and me would never be seen laughing and smiling and shooting the breeze together. I said that maybe we would, but there probably wouldn’t be a bunch of smiling faces around us. At that he smiled and agreed. He was black; I am white.

It’s an historic election to be sure. The fate of our country is literally at stake after eight years of destructive policies and malevolent stewardship. The people of America know this and are coming out in droves to make their voices heard.

I remember when I first voted in a presidential election. I felt proud to mark my ballot for Bill Clinton. Back then it felt like I was helping to “change the guard” by putting a younger man in the highest office in the land. I was pretty happy with Clinton as president, but his was no groundbreaking administration, his challenges not so daunting compared to ours today. In retrospect, I think that my feelings in that election were more about me, about finally being able to be part of “adult America.” Today I felt different. Today, this election, and my part in it, was not about writing a page in my personal history. Today’s election is all about us. This will be the election to remember. This is the one that counts.

If you haven’t voted yet, go vote. If you’ve already voted, thank you. See you on the other side.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

233 years ago, our predecessors through off the chains of an oppressive, authoritarian, anti-freedom government. Their success was the first step towards our free and democratic way of life.

233 years later, another George is trying to shackle the freedom and democracy of this great country through an authoritarian and oppressive force of will.

Today you have the chance to rescue that which our forefathers fought and died for. Today you have the chance to stand for freedom.

Today it is time to change the direction. Vote for Freedom.

(cross posted at Bring It On! and Blogtemps)

The Shah of Iran was one. Idi Amin was one. Manuel Noriega was one. Ferdinand Marcos was another. So was Saddam Hussein. Osama bin Laden was one too. These and many others were at one time or another allied with the government of the United States in our battle against Soviet communism. Yet their tyrannical rule of their own people, with the acquiescence of U.S. governments and in total contradiction to our own stated beliefs of the state of man’s rights to freedom, led to tumultuous political upheavals in those countries and fostered an aura of distrust and outright hostility to the United States. We may have saved the world from the monstrosity of Nazism and Japanese totalitarianism, but we weren’t raising the lives of anyone but ourselves. In fact, we were nothing but hypocrites of the worst sort. We espoused ideas for the whole of humanity while embracing them for ourselves only.

Americans in general understood the concept at play, and recognizing Soviet communism to be a direct threat to freedom and democracy, accepted the rules of the game as the government wrote them. After all, American prosperity exploded. So what if the Arabs and Asians and Africans were being beaten and killed and starved around the world. We were too busy enjoying our access to cheap oil and trinkets to care about anyone else. The policy of the lesser of two evils had done us well, so why rock the boat?

Why indeed?

The simple truth is that the lesser of two evils policy is a fallacy. By choosing this method of foreign relations, the U.S. has not endeared itself to the people of the world. Despite the charity of our individual citizens to poor or ravaged countries around the world, the reputation of America is based on the actions of our government. We tout our freedoms and democratic principals everywhere we go, so the people of the world can only assume that we not only approve of what our government does abroad, we dictate that policy ourselves. They may want to come here and share in that power, but that doesn’t mean they like us. By choosing the lesser of two evils, we’ve shown the world that our means justify any ends, especially if the ends means more money and leisure for us. This approach to foreign policy has made us many false allies and real enemies, and the fruition of this approach is coming home to roost in the form of terror attacks and nuclear proliferation. And while the worst tyrants operate abroad, it is we who let them. Who is worse: the man who kicks the puppy or the one who pays to watch?

The lesser of two evils policy has come to haunt us in others ways too, ways equally as threatening to our way of life as the foreign enemies who are rising against us. So indoctrinated are we in this way of thinking, so convinced that there is always a time and a place to sacrifice our ideals to further our own comfort or success, we have adopted the theory to our own daily lives and politics. We accept throw away consumerism in exchange for cheap prices. We ignore illegal immigration for cheap produce. We vote for political hacks instead of people who really want to help their neighbors.

Well, we reap what we sow, both as a government and as a people. Not only do we have vicious enemies who really want to kill us and our way of life, we have a government who is becoming increasingly more like those dictatorships we propped up in the past. We have a government who espouses the use of torture, secret eavesdropping, indefinite detention, and defamation as a means of securing our freedom. We have a government who meets dissent with a sneer and a slur while telling us that our enemy is evil because they don’t let their people speak freely. We have an administration that will stop at nothing to protect us from our enemies, even if that means destroying the freedoms we hold so dear. We see the evidence mounting, and yet we allow it to continue.

Why?

It is because of the lesser of two evils theory, that foul, false policy that does nothing but decrease the total amount of liberty in this world by promoting fear over freedom; profit over people? Our government is telling us that unless we give them the power to do anything, anywhere, and anytime that they see fit, to stop the enemy from attacking us again, then we will surely lose the war on terror and fall victim to a dictatorial theocracy. They want us to believe that by suspending our own liberties to them at home, we will be averting an even greater decimation of our liberty in the long run. They are presenting themselves as the lesser of two evils.

By accepting the doctrine of the lesser of two evils, we may have driven Soviet aggression into the ground. But the price we are paying for our chosen method is an even more unstable world and a more unpredictable array of enemies. Perhaps had we chosen another path of confrontation, we would have won that battle with some real friends in the world. We can’t change the past, but we can learn from it. And we should start our first lesson here.

Our government still pursues the lesser of two evils doctrine abroad, and now they want to use it at home. We are at a crossroads. By choosing the lesser of two evils, we are giving up on the chance of choosing good. We are giving up on the promise of freedom, equality, and peace. We must oppose those who support the tyranny of others for our own prosperity. We must cast out those who would destroy freedom for the sake of false security. We must choose to follow those who will defend freedom for freedoms sake.

If you believe the polls and the opinion editorials and the general grumbling of the people on the street, you might infer that Americans are growing increasingly unhappy with the quality of service they are receiving from their government, a government that is supposedly elected to respond to their concerns as a whole, and not just a government that works for the interests of the select or noisiest few. We complain about leniency for violent criminals and revolving prison doors. We decry the complexity and snail’s pace of the legal system, both criminal and civil. We constantly tirade at the state of our educational system, our medical system, or our retirement system. We shake our heads in disgust at the corruption uncovered almost daily among the political leadership in our cities and states and national levels of government. But when the jury summons arrives in the mailbox, our first thought is finding a way to get excused. When our children fail to pass skills tests or need remedial classes to get into community colleges, we find a teacher or program to blame instead of stepping in to help our kids learn. And when our politicians are out of touch or just plain stupid, we re-elect them based on a party affiliation instead of looking for a viable alternative. Even when they are indicted for corruption, we look to their contemporaries to fill their shoes, letting the shady deals pick up as if nothing had ever changed. In increasing numbers, we aren’t even voting at all. Quid pro quo. You get what you give. If we’re as unhappy as we proclaim to be, if we’re as dissatisfied and disgusted as we profess to be, why aren’t we giving more so that we can get a better product?

Part of the problem is the growing feeling among average people that the whole political process is too corrupt to change and that nothing we could do or say will make a difference. This feeling of hopelessness is neither accurate nor acceptable if we are to revive true self-government and restore democratic values to our political system. The fact is that at least 40% and upwards of 80% of eligible voters do not participate in local, state, or federal elections. In Fixing The Vote, Parts One and Two, I explored the reasons for this dilemma and offered some viable solutions to help turn this trend around. But an even bigger part of the solution lies in changing our own attitudes and deciding to get back in the game. Hopelessness is not accurate because if all of those unheard voices would let themselves be heard, then hope could transcend into reality through the election of real people-oriented representatives instead of the paid for politicians we have now. Hopelessness is not acceptable because to abandon the process is to give it to the corrupt corporations and their political hacks, in effect handing them the key to our public assets and turning our backs as they plunder the safe. If change is what you want, then you must let it be known. Find a candidate you can support and get the silent majority to actually turn out and back your choice instead of settling for the party’s anointed golden child of the season or forgoing the vote altogether.

Do you want a representative who spends his or her time cuddling up to big money donors instead of working on the public problems? Do you want to continue to pay taxes to support an over-bloated bureaucracy that fumbles the future integrity of our educational, medical, and retirement systems? Do you want a politician who would give away your public lands and funds so that they can be exploited by billion dollar corporations or shut down entirely by special interest demands? If your answer is “Hell No!” then you must give more than lip service. You must get more involved. You must vote. Otherwise, you might just as well keep your gripes to yourself.

It may seem simplistic to continually return to the importance of voting and its ability to create reform, but as with many things in life, simple is the way to go. And truth be told, while the act of voting is among the most important tools we have for reform, it is also the least imposing form of action imaginable. It takes mere minutes (especially if you get an absentee ballot sent to you) in many cases, and in places where the lines to the polls are longer, demand for and volunteer to staff more polling centers. As registration increases with a renewed realization of the empowerment that voting can bring, election officials will be forced to open more polling centers. If they follow the model set by Starbucks (a shop on every corner, because waiting more than a few minutes is too long to wait), voting could be as easy as drive-thru service. If you want people you can trust in office, you’ve got to put them there. Quid pro quo.

Increasing the vote is the first big step, and also the easiest, at least it should be. Beyond that, levels of involvement become more time consuming, but also more important as they relate to oversight and holding elected officials accountable for their actions on our behalf. We must be willing to join local citizen panels and school associations and public information committees. We must be willing to support honest attempts at reform as vociferously as we now bemoan the idiocy that passes for judicious public stewardship. We must eliminate government excess and corruption to retain our freedoms while reforming government efficiency to sustain our future. We must stop being silent.

With the active participants of democracy already in the fray, and getting nowhere but deeper in the morass of corruption and stagnancy, the ability of this country to move to a viable Common Sense position has been reduced. It has been stealthily subverted by the corporate interests and destructive forces of distorted religious ideologies and selfish attitudes of elected officials and fringe, self-serving positions of far right and far left special interest groups. You get what you give, and when you give less and less, someone else will try to fill that gap. In American politics, average citizens have been letting someone else dictate what they should think or support because they won’t speak for themselves. Are you one of those people? If you are, the future of change really rests in your hands.

A primary cause for voter apathy is the fact that most political candidates do not represent the average citizen. It is hard to get enthusiastic about electing as your representative to the lawmaking halls of society someone with whom you have no common connection or point of view. The average citizen is not born in a wealthy family. They are not universally educated at the most expensive universities. They do not have six figure incomes, luxury boats, or domestic servants. Now take a look at the average politician at the federal and state levels of government. Most are millionaires, from well off families, living a life more luxurious than their countrymen. For people in this position, it becomes difficult to imagine, let alone empathize with, the life of ordinary people. But the costs associated with running an election, even a relatively small local contest, is beyond the means of most citizens who would likely take a shot at being involved if only they could afford the price of admission. What we end up with is the usual slate of candidates, well connected to the established political machines and corporate donors, offering little real choice for voters who crave change. For those left in the game (for that’s what it has truly become) the commencing battle becomes less one of ideas than one of wallets. The only winners are the corporations themselves, giving money for access and getting it back threefold or more when their candidate gets in. They play the odds and support both sides, so they’re always guaranteed a victory. And while it may be technically illegal under today’s laws for corporations to donate to a candidate directly, the spirit of the campaign finance laws are always circumnavigated by the crafty legal teams hired by the corporations and wealthy individuals who think that their great wealth gives them the right to rule the world.

Real reform is what we need if we are going to have a shot at getting our government back from the corporate interests who dominate the halls of legislation these days. We must leveling the playing field for candidates and lower the costs of running a campaign. First, we must enact tight spending limits on all campaigns including the amount of money a candidate (or their campaign committee) can collect. This will have the effect of reducing the amount of money donated, thereby reducing the inequity of influence by donors. Limits can be based on a cost per voter formula, costs per week of campaigning, or other such assessment. Second, we much put a cap on the amount of money an individual can donate to a campaign and eliminate any kind of collective corporate, union, or PAC donation drives. This cap could be tiered for each level of government, with a lower threshold set for local elections up to a maximum of $1,000 per person in federal elections. This regulation would have the effect of removing inappropriate influence from single entities contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to a campaign, in effect buying a candidate. It would also give individuals greater control over their own political dollars by eliminating de facto political contributions culled from membership dues and other collective, but not necessarily elective, mandatory costs. Third, we must limit the number of weeks that active campaign advertising can take place, both for a primary run-off and a general election. By reducing the length of campaign advertising to within a month before a primary or general election, we would not only force candidates to spread their message through actually meeting and talking with constituents, we would reduce the costs of campaigning by reducing the amount of advertising that would be purchased.

Next, we must mandate that commercial broadcasters (who currently have practically free reign of the publicly owned airwaves and broadband spectrums) provide free political advertising for all candidates in a general election and token rates for all candidates in a primary election. These businesses exist at the good will of the Congress, with a stated obligation to use their frequencies for the public good. It is arguable that television shows are somewhat to blame for the dumbing down of Americans, so merely running their regular programming, laced with commercial messages, doesn’t really satisfy the obligation. Mandating political advertising concessions would be a small price for these companies to pay for the privilege of growing rich on the publics back. In return, broadcasters could be free to charge whatever rate they could command for any private political ads, provided they are issue oriented and contain no reference to a specific candidate. Such soft-money ads are often just a front for a candidates political assassin squad, but eliminating their ability to discuss anything but a particular public issue, without mentioning a candidates name or position, would remove some of their persuasive power, at least so far as demonizing a candidate is concerned, and would make the public learn about a candidates views by talking to them instead of relying on sound bites.

Fifth, limit political party contributions to candidates, making would-be politicians focus their energy on meeting the citizens and raising money through them. Political party funds could instead be used to pay for bipartisan (or multi-partisan) election commissions who would monitor, organize, and validate election results, prepare voter informational materials and cover the hard costs of having an election. And finally, each level of government should establish a specific fund that would pay the living costs of the non-incumbent, local and state candidates during the general election campaign cycle, up to a certain amount. This would allow people who have public service in their blood the ability to make a run for office without having to lose their home or have their kids go hungry while they were on the campaign trail. We’re not talking about extravagant funds, but enough to make the bills while standing up for election.

When it comes to the candidates themselves, there are several ways we can reduce the costs associated with entering politics, and reduce the probability of improper influence peddling through political contributions. First, we should remove any regulations that allow a prospective candidate to purchase their way on to the ballot. In many areas, in order to qualify for a primary ballot, you must collect a significant number of signatures from people living in the district you wish to represent. Or you can just pay a fee, usually more than a thousand dollars for federal or state office, and several hundreds for many local races. Those with the money just pay the fee, bypassing the whole “connect with the common man” element that signature gathering fosters. But the number of signatures is usually next to impossible for a working person who can’t afford to pony up the dollars to get in the door. Level the playing field here and you’ll get more people who look like the voters. Let’s remove the “fee option” and reduce the total number of signatures required to get on a primary ballot.

Also, we
should prohibit all elected officials from soliciting donations prior to three months before an election. They are not supposed to be campaigning during their terms anyhow. It is hard to govern when you spend all your time begging for money. That, and the fact that their incumbency should give them an upper hand in collecting campaign funds would reduce their exposure even more to those who would try to buy influence. First time candidates could get and extra month or two to raise funds and build name recognition. At the end of an election, all campaign funds not used would go to the national campaign fund or be divided by the prominent political parties for use in the next election cycle. Presidential candidates would have somewhat larger collectible donation thresholds and longer campaign periods simply due the size of a national constituency.

The final piece of the puzzle is the administration of swift and harsh punishment for politicians or political professionals who violate the public campaign finance laws. If found guilty of gaming the system for their benefit or for another person’s benefit, they should be dealt with as treasonous individuals who would subvert our government for their own selfish gain. The rules should be clear and simple, leaving no room for misinterpretation. Any efforts to bypass the spirit of the law should also be dealt with by banishing the offender(s) from public political aspirations. Such unbending resoluteness against any corruption may be just the deterrent needed to help end the abuse and usher in Common Sense reform.

For many of us, voting as a concept is instilled early in our lives through student council elections. We experience our first campaign slogans, often just clever rhymes, and encounter our first campaign smears, often just childish retorts. We learn the concept of selecting someone to “represent” our class interests, but since as school children we really have few pressing political goals, class elections inevitably turn into individual popularity contests, with the outcome being of little consequence, except for bragging rights to the winners. While this may expose us to the fundamental mechanics of voting, it also creates an impression of what politics in the adult world will be like, and the seriousness of the whole system is lost. Perhaps this kind of political indoctrination is part and parcel to some grand scheme to keep political (and therefore, practical) power concentrated in the hands of the elite classes, perhaps it is just a reflection of what our real life politics have become. Regardless, the result is the same: large numbers of adults eschewing politics and voting because it seems pointless or unimportant in the big picture of life.

The result is predictable: elected officials are selected by a minority of eligible voters and supported by corporations and unions and special interests. As fewer voters participate in elections, politicians become less accountable to their supposed constituents and spend more and more time currying favor with their money mills, passing favorable legislation for their corporate cronies and filling non-elected positions with their sycophant fund raising hacks. The common voter, seeing the corruption sitting at the table of power, loses even more confidence in “the system” and opts out of future elections. As elected officials come from a narrower and narrower sampling of society, they tighten the rules of admission, effectively keeping out those same people who are frustrated with the way things are, leaving fewer options for real change available at the ballot box. The whole circle becomes a vicious feeding frenzy, engorging itself on its own rotten fruit.

What then can we do to change the way things are? The problems of voter apathy, voter disenfranchisement, and political funding must be taken on squarely and addressed with Common Sense solutions. Each must be reformed for the whole to be repaired and for the people of this country to reclaim for themselves real representation in the halls of government, from the smallest towns to Washington, D.C.

Ending Voter Apathy In 2004, 58.3% of eligible voters cast ballots in the national election. In most local and state elections, the percentage was even lower. While this represents an increase from the 51.3% who voted in the 2000 elections, since 1976, the year of our national bicentennial, the percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots surpassed 60% only one time- in 1992, when 61.3% voted. Even if all other problems with our voting process were removed, at least 40% of voting age adults in this country do not take the time to make their voices heard. The number one reason for not voting (at nearly 21% of respondents) was because people were “too busy.” Another 20% either didn’t like the candidates they had to choose from or felt their vote would make no difference. In fact, legitimate excuses such as illness, lack of transportation, and inclement weather together only account for 18% of excuses for not voting.

Ending voter apathy clearly will be tough work, but a little creative thinking could reinvigorate the average person to hit the polls, especially if they know that by doing so, they are helping themselves. And in our ever-quickening pace of life, with its increased productivity expectations, making elections a priority has got to be given higher visibility. We should start by making election days official holidays, with half-pay for all employed voters, and free refreshments for everyone. With the exception of medical and emergency personnel, all retail, service, and manufacturing activities would grind to a halt on elections days, encouraging citizens to participate in the running of their lives and deflecting the “too busy” excuse. We can sweeten the pot even more by instituting an election lottery. Create a lottery system that guarantees at least one winner in each state a substantial financial reward for participating in elective democracy, and multiple smaller awards for state and local elections. (The money to pay these awards could be culled from tax receipts earmarked for electoral expenditures.) These two measures alone could draw back many of the so-called “disenfranchised” voters by appealing to their “me” centers. You could further induce voting by adding a “stick” to the “carrot” approach, essentially fining any eligible voter who doesn’t vote. Combined with the reward possibilities, voting would begin to look less and less problematic.

Increasing the number of voter’s casting votes is the first step towards fixing the vote. As larger numbers of people make their voices heard, it becomes increasingly difficult for politicians to claim mandates for their programs that may not exist. It becomes harder to shun accountability when more of the public is engaged in the system. But increasing the number of voters alone doesn’t guarantee a better system. Eventually, those people who always vote and never win the election lottery will need to satisfy their own “me” centers, which is where voter disenfranchisement (and early education about civic responsibility) comes in to play.

Voter Disenfranchisement The way the system works now, by the time an election day rolls around, the choice of candidates is extremely narrow. Through a system of awkward primaries that exclude all but the majority party candidates through a concerted lack of exposure by the media and the electoral commissions, voters often feel as if the only real choices available are not representative of their own political and social goals, and decline to vote at all. The effects of this practice alienate voters and exclude a potentially large body of candidates from getting a chance at all. To the political parties and their poster children, this system has guaranteed a perpetual sew-saw struggle of pathetic proportions, but the reins of power are certain to remain within their spheres of influence, so they prefer the status quo of low turn-out and limited candidate eligibility.

Again, a little imagination could offer a solution to this problem. The primary system should include an independent (or non-affiliated) election primary as well as the organized party primaries, with the top two or three non-affiliated candidates getting a place on the final ballot as well as equal exposure. These “all-comer” candidates could offer viable alternatives to the present cadre of politicians, many of whom would be needed to really get down to the business of creating change.

Disenfranchisement also addresses the problems of voter registration and convenient polling stations. While only 9.5% of non-voters listed these as reasons for abstaining, that still represents several million people who need to be casting their
votes. To erase the problems with voter registration, we should move to an automatic registration program, perhaps using biometric indicators and Social Security numbers to get every person in the voter rolls. If it were a biometric indicator, like fingerprint or retina or DNA, the information could be gathered upon birth, stored in an encrypted data base until one achieved voting age, and then registered with the appropriate state and local jurisdictions automatically at the appropriate time. Upon voting, one would simply match their bio data to that in the record, and proceed to the ballot. Through the Social Security system automatic registrations based on the address of ones job could help establish proper jurisdiction for allocating ones vote. And while the debut of computer or online voting has so far been fraught with claims (both documented and undocumented) of fraud and abuse, the problems of poll convenience could be eliminated through a digital voting system, albeit one with stringent security mechanisms, tangible voting records and receipts (necessary anyhow, for the lottery enticement), automatic count verification, and total transparency.

Political funding is the third leg of reform with regards to fixing the vote, and it deserves an essay all on its own, because it includes reforming how we fund campaigns, how we learn about our candidates, and how we verify that votes are valid. I hope you will join me again as I explore more solutions that will give government back to the citizens.