A Voter's Bill of Rights would make for better politics

[Towntalk]

Speaking of "Equal Time" ... yet another candidate has tossed his hat into the ring ... Alan Keys has officially announced that he will run on the GOP ticket ... that brings to 20 the nember of candidates running for President in both parties, not counting Third Party candidates ... if all the candidates some 20+ were to be given Equal Time do you realize just what that would do to regular programming, and how much that would cost the networks?

If 1 hour were given over to equal time for all the candidates running for President alone, that would add up to 20 hours a day, and what about all the other candidates running for lesser officers. Local stations would have to give Equal Time to all the candidates running for House Seats and Senate seats, so how could they posably fit all of them in and still fulfill their other commitments?

Remember ... under Equal Time ... if a news broadcast mentions a candidate equal time has to be given to not only that candidate, but all the other candidates to respond.

[Towntalk]

And how would you deal with the problems surrounding such problems as vote count ... dead people voting ... falling chads ... electronic voting that messes up ... and a whole other index of problems that are encountered every election?

If a citizen is as interested in voting for the "Best man" as a good citizen he or she would make the effort on their own to learn as much about the candidates on their own as they can .

The Internet is full of information on ALL the candidates including Third Party candidates. They no longer need to run hither and yon to hear 30 second sound bites from candidates who perpetually lie through their teeth every time they turn around.

For my part I'm trying to do what I can to educate the voters on my web site and I'm sick and tired of all the trash that passes for voter information in the news media. More access for third parties? Hecks pups none of these third party candidates stand an icebergs chance on the Sun of winning, and giving them "equal time" isn't going to help.

As for Equal Air Time .. do you seriously think that anyone would want to sit back and watch a gaggle of candidates bend our ears on an "equal" basis every day? Come on.

Equal Time means if candidate A is even so much as mentioned on a news cast or a Talking Heads show, then equal time would have to be given to every candidate running for that office. To accomplish that, the networks would have to eliminate 50 percent of their programming of non-election shows. It would mean that PBS would have to give air time to all the candidates and cut their regular programming till after the elections or drop those programs such as NOW, Bill Moyers Journal, the nightly news and the Talking Heads such as Charlie Rose.

What ever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSABILITY when it come to learning about the candidates? And for that matter, given the dismal voter turnout at elections, what are the Third Parties doing about getting out the votes?

I've yet had a third party make any effort to contact me about getting out to vote, but the Republicans and the Democrats do every election.

Finance reform? We have campaign finance laws and it hasn't helped a bit. Look at what's in the news ... candidates taking millions of dollars from crooks.

As for Third Party candidates, how many of them get out on the stump and meet with the people absent debates. They can't generate interest by sitting on their hands and depending on supporters to do all the work for them.

How many Third Party candidates have made an effort to come to Youngstown to speak?

Two Presidential candidates have been here already and the Primary isn't till next Spring. Come next year you can bet that list will grow, and none of them will be third party candidates.

[irishbobcat]

1.Publicly financed elections and equal airtime for all candidates on the public airwaves

In a system where the amount a candidate spends is directly related to the likelihood of success, it is not surprising that voters think politicians are more concerned with big campaign contributors than with individual voters. We need to establish full public financing of campaigns and free access to public airwaves. Broadcasters must carry debates and provide free time for all candidates and parties as a license requirement to use our public airwaves.


2.Equal access to the ballot and debates

In our two-party system, third parties and independents face a host of institutional barriers -- from getting on the ballot to being included in debates to broadcasting their views. This discourages people from voting because alternative voices help enliven the political debate that is at the heart of any healthy democracy. Prohibitive ballot access requirements should be dropped and debates should be open to all ballot-qualified candidates -- and should be organized independently of the political parties themselves. These necessary reforms will help to increase the diversity of voices of candidates while increasing voter participation.


3.Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation

In one visit to the polls, instant runoff voting (IRV) ensures a winning candidate will receive a majority of votes rather than a simple plurality -- as in most U.S. elections. IRV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference (first, second, third choice and so on). If no candidate gets a majority of first choices, a runoff count can be conducted without the need for a second election. In the wake of citizen frustration with "spoiler" candidacies and non-majority winners, efforts to replace plurality election laws with this more democratic alternative have made significant progress in various states because voters are not only provided the opportunity to vote for those candidates they like the most without worrying that their vote will help candidates they like least, IRV also saves taxpayers money and increases voter participation. Each runoff elections drains financial resources in our communities -- a runoff election costs taxpayers upwards of two million dollars in San Francisco, for example. Money saved can be used to purchase more machines, staff more polling places and help to increase voter education and participation.

IRV is a time-tested, successful voting method that has been used around the world: Ireland uses IRV to elect its president, Australia to elect its House of Representatives, and San Francisco to elect its mayor and other major city offices. Literally hundreds of jurisdictions, universities, organizations and corporations use IRV to elect its leaders. "Winner-take-all" is a very undemocratic way to choose representatives to government. Why should 49% of voters in a legislative district get 0% representation? Most democracies in the world use some form of proportional representation to choose legislatures. If one quarter of the voters support a particular party, they should be able to elect roughly a quarter of the seats in a city council or legislature. The majority of voters will elect the majority of seats but minorities will get their fair share of representation; it's common sense!



Vote for Change. Change your vote.

www.ohiogreens.org
www.gp.org