This is no way to run a democracy!

[illusionofjoy]

The electoral process in the United States is terribly broken - and that is the primary reason anybody should be annoyed with Ralph Nader's decision to run for president yet again. Let's all be honest here and just admit that Nader is a spoiler. He is a spoiler because the system is rigged to favour the two mainstream parties and his presence only serves as yet another cog in that dastardly machine. His acceptance of donations from republicans and the fact that Mike Huckabee even blatantly admitted that a Nader run was "a good thing for [the republican party]" should drive the point home. Ralph: get wise and understand that you are being used as a pawn in the same system you claim to be railing against.

I'd be grateful for Nader's diminishing returns with these subsequent runs, save for the fact that he is wasting his energy doing so in the first place. At best, these repeated attempts betray an incurable carelessness and at worst, they display a stubborn arrogance. Nader has good ideas and is an eloquent speaker, but his efforts would be better served in building grassroots supports for the causes he holds dear, rather than making himself a laughingstock with these "grand" gestures of running for president. When the Green Party doesn't even want you anymore, it's time to come up with a new plan.

I am still for a full overhaul of the electoral process in the United States. As it stands currently, our "winner take all" system of the simple majority is an abomination of representative Democracy. Here's what needs to happen:

Scrap the simple majority in favour of Instant Run-off Voting. It is the simple majority system which allows the Democrats and republicans to maintain a duopoly over the American electoral process. With Instant Run-off Voting (IRV), candidates are "ranked" by voters in order of preference. This effectively eliminates "third" parties and levels the playing field for the diverse ideas and ideologies which actually make up the political and cultural fabric of the nation.

Abolish the Electoral College. This archaic institution has been disconnecting voters from their elected representatives for centuries. It is an affront to representative Democracy and, ultimately, a remnant and reminder of a time when it was legal under Man's laws to own other human beings.

Standardise the voting systems on a federal level. I'm not much for State's rights - as far as I'm concerned, the United States is stronger and more functional as one large country, rather than fifty little countries who begrudgingly agree to cooperate with each other. The current patchwork of voting standard across the nation (going so far as to vary within states themselves from district to district) is a shameful affair ripe for unscrupulous exploitation (i.e.: Florida in 2000, possibly Ohio in 2004). This is one country and one system should be used for electing it's representatives - preferably one which leaves an indelible paper trail, should election results be contested.

These points, of course, apply to any election which may be held, but this year I've been paying particularly close attention to the Democratic primaries and really not liking what I am seeing. Frankly, at this point, I think I'm suffering from some form of Obama fatigue. I'm just sick of hearing about how great he is while seeing the mainstream media effectively fellate him via newsprint. Is it too much to ask for some critical analysis of his proposed policies or some scrutiny of his voting record? Let me get the ball rolling on that scrutiny part: why is Obama claiming to still be the anti-war candidate when, at the point that it came time to vote on a bill to continue funding for the war, he voted the exact same way Hillary Clinton did?

The main thing that is bothering me is the primary system itself. While I've been aware that states hold primary elections or caucuses (in the case of Texas, it's both) on different dates, this particular primary season has smacked me in the face with the revelation as to just how stupid this system is! The Texas and Ohio primaries are next Tuesday, and by the time Pennsylvania's primary happens in April, this Hillary Clinton supporter may find himself feeling the exact say way that millions of John Edwards supports did after he bowed out of the race: screwed. Those who had already voted for him while he was still running were screwed because their votes were effectively tossed into the garbage and those who'd yet to have a primary election in their state were screwed out of even having a chance to vote for their preferred candidate in the first place, their only remaining option being to write in "John Edwards" as a form of protest! This is asinine! Just because I live in Pennsylvania does not mean I should be forced to sit back and watch every other state in the Union chose who represents my party because my state is (mind the pun) late to the party. I really sympathise with John Edwards supporters at this point - hell, I'd still be sympathising even if Barack Obama were my first choice, namely because no one in a functioning democracy should have their voices stifled in such a way.

So, in addition to my reforms for the general election(s), here are my reforms for choosing party leaders:

Caucuses should be scrapped; primaries should be the only valid voting avenue. Frankly, the caucus system is a ridiculous throwback to a time before the telephone, back when town hall meetings were a necessity because long-distance communication was impossible. Now, this archaic system only brings out a party's biggest zealots and completely skews the results. It is out of step with the times to stand in a room and group people in various corners of said room to choose a candidate. Vote in a booth like a real democracy (and where one's right to privacy through the secret ballot is protected).

Primaries should all be held on the same date. I'll be blunt: Iowa and New Hampshire do not deserve the influence they have over who party leaders are by virtue of being first in line. No one state deserves to wield such an influence! The general election is held on the same day in every state, the primaries should be too.

Voters not affiliated with a party do not get to vote in primaries. This may seem unfair, but it actually isn't. The purpose of primaries is to choose party leaders who will run in the general election, which is open to all voters (and should remain so). Under the current scatter shot system, some states allow so-called independents to vote in whatever primary they want to. Frankly, I find this offensive: I am a registered Democrat and by declaring a party affiliation I have made a statement regarding my political beliefs and I have a stake in the direction the party takes. I have no right to choose leaders for the republican party, nor any other party which may exist (Green, Socialist, Libertarian, etc.) because I've already chosen my allegiances. Independents have made no such allegiances and have no real stake in the direction a party takes - allowing them to vote in a party's primary and have a stake in something they obviously did not have enough interest in to register for is insulting and potentially damaging once the general election arrives.

There are some who would argue that Instant Runoff Voting negates the need for primaries (and conversely, primaries negate the need for Instant Runoff Voting). Neither of these are true, as the primary serves to elect party leaders and should only be open to those already registered with a political party. IRV should be part of a primary, but the general election remains the battlefield where anyone can vote for whomever they want, regardless of party affiliation.