To do or not to do?

At The Seminole Chronicle, Tyler Yeargain puts together a political to-do list, and makes a case for direct democracy, term limits, ballot access reform and campaign finance reform:

The Electoral College often distorts elections, hurts third party candidates and gives people the impression that their vote does not count. For example, in 2008, President Obama received 52.9 percent of the popular vote, but nearly 67 percent of the electoral vote. And we all remember in 2000 when Vice-President Gore received 500,000 more votes than then-Governor Bush, but lost the Electoral College vote. Cleaning our hands of this dreadful system would certainly add to our reputation as a democratic beacon of light.

Campaign finance reform can make our elections open to anyone, and make our politicians more honest and accountable. I think it is a reasonable thing to say that if politicians were not so much in the oil companies' pockets, then we might actually develop alternative fuels, increase fuel efficiency, combat global warming, and decrease gas prices. Why would politicians vote with an industry that does not employ people in their district and does not provide them with a steady flow of contributions?

Repealing the rule that only candidates who are polling at 15 percent nationwide or higher can participate in officially-sanctioned presidential debates would present voters with more options than the Democratic and Republican parties. The last independent candidate to appear in a presidential debate was Ross Perot in 1992. People often complain about the two-party system, and inclusion of third-party candidates (but not all third-party candidates) would present people with more options.

Implementing term limits for our representatives and senators in Congress would allow more people to serve their country and represent American citizens, thus providing the U.S. with a government that is aware of what the citizens are in support of but would be willing to make risks and stand up for what they truly believe by not having to run for re-election.


Samuel Wilson said...

The problem with the Electoral College is that the states determine whether they are awarded by district or on a winner-take-all basis. The majority of states choose the latter option. Reforming the system, by a consitutional amendment if necessary, by requiring states to award electoral votes on a district basis could make the Electoral College more advantageous to regionally concentrated third parties than a raw popular vote.

d.eris said...

That is an interesting suggestion. It may even appeal to national popular vote activists seeking to remove or otherwise undermine the current electoral college system in any way possible.