Bringing Democracy Back to America

Take a look at the Republicans and Democrats running for President this year, and one thing that should jump out at you is this: each and every one of them is wealthy (yes, folks, even Ron Paul). The same is true of virtually every Senate or House candidate throughout the country. Everyone running for Governor of any state is, invariably, a wealthy individual. Even most of the candidates seeking seats in State Legislatures are carrying around heavy wallets.

So what's wrong with this picture? Plenty, in my estimation. The fact that almost all candidates for office are wealthy is not the problem in and of itself. The problem is that our current system makes it impossible for anyone who is not wealthy to win an election, or to even be competitive.

It's become this way because of our two-party system. With just two parties having a virtual monopoly on our political system, they have free reign to choose who will represent them as candidates. And, as sad as it is, the great equalizer in this formation is the almighty dollar. People who are in a position to contribute a lot of money, or use their financial strength to bring in supporters, are going to be given the lion's share of the attention. For that reason, only influential members of the party are given the resources and support to succeed in an election, and only individuals with money become influential.

It is a vicious cycle, and one that makes our democracy less than democratic. How can the poor and middle class be truly represented by wealthy men and women? Many politicians will talk a good game about helping those people - and, occasionally, there will be a good statesmen that will make a positive difference - but for the most part, there is no one in a position of power that is looking out for the interests of average citizens. You can't really understand what it's like to lose your house if you've never even had to live paycheck to paycheck before. I bet you would be hard pressed to find a single public official that has ever had a hard time paying his bills.

Now, I'm not saying that all of our representatives should be poor. I'm just saying that we need a fairer, more democratic system that makes it possible for people of all types, and all income levels, to have an influence. To do that, we need to break the monopoly that the Republicans and Democrats have over our electoral system.

If you look through the election law in most states - and my home state, Michigan, is no exception - you will see just how protective the two main parties are of their power. They make it exceedingly difficult for any minor party to even get on the ballot, and even harder for it to stay there.

In Michigan, a third party must get a number of petition signatures equal to 1% of the total number of votes cast for governor in the previous election cycle in order to be placed on the ballot. So, in 2008, a third party would have to get at least 38,013 signatures to appear on the ballot. To make matters worse, those signatures must be spread out across the state, with at least 100 from ½ of the Congressional Districts in the state.

To stay on the ballot the next time around, without doing the petition process all over again, a third party's primary candidate must receive, in 2008, at least 20,899 votes.

All of these rules, along with many others that I haven't mentioned, are designed to keep third parties from eating into the political power pie that the Republicans and Democrats have been keeping all to themselves. There are ways to make the game fairer, but the major parties don't want you to know about them.

The first step in the right direction would be to implement what is called Instant Runoff Voting. This process takes away the "spoiler" effect that third party candidates currently have. The spoiler effect was in display in 2000, when Ralph Nader's candidacy cost Al Gore the election.

In Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), voters not only pick their preferred candidate, but also choose their second choice, third choice, and so on. Then, if no candidate receives 50% of the vote, the candidate with the lowest vote total is eliminated, and his or her votes are distributed among the other candidates, based on who voters selected as their second choice. This process is repeated until one candidate finally gets a majority.

Not only does this make voters more likely to vote for a third party candidate, since they won't have to be afraid that their vote is "spoiling" another candidate's chances, but it also makes it easier for strong third-party candidates to enter the field. There would not be pressure from the two major parties to stay out of the race, because they wouldn't have to worry about any spoilers.

Another change that would bring a great deal of attention to third party candidates, and thus make them more viable, is to allow them to enter their candidates in the nationally televised Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates. Now, of course, we wouldn't want 50 candidates appearing in the debate, because then no one would be able to get their message across. But we can have a reasonable qualification, such as allowing only parties who are on the ballot in at least ¾ of states (38) to enter their candidate. Then, in most years, we would have 4 or 5 candidates in the debate. That's not too many, and it would give the minor parties an increase in exposure, which would at least start to level the playing field.

An obvious solution is to relax the state laws that make it so hard for third parties to exist in the first place. That is a process that will take a great deal of time and resources, though implementing these first two suggestions would go a long way toward accomplishing this goal as well.

A democracy is not a democracy if only certain people can have an influence over it. Such is the state of our government now, where only the elite are in a position to connect with voters. Something must be done to change this, and to return power to the people like our Constitution intended. I have laid out several possible steps that will help us get to that point. Now we just have to get the word out there.