I will make this short and sweet. No inaugural addresses required.
This is the first time, and I truly mean FIRST time I've ever felt like I had a clear choice for president of the United States. Every election I've voted in (1988 was my first) has presented me with candidates I truly despise. I've had to, every time, vote for the one that I disliked the least; the one I distrusted the least, etc....
For the first time in my voting history, I had a black and white choice (no pun intended) between the candidates. Now, the candidate that I clearly felt more confident about, Barack Obama has won the election. I'm happy for him and I'm happy for the United States of America.
This is a historic day in the history of the United States. We have leaped racial hurdles for a century or more to get to this point and I'm proud of my country. I'm proud that we can see the man and not the color of his skin. I'm glad to see that a man of color can run for president and not only does he have a shot, but he wins by a significant margin. I'm proud to be a part of this moment that will be remembered in history. Think of the wide eyed children 50 years from now who will look at your and say, "you were there when Barack Obama, the first black president was elected?" and you can answer, "yes, I voted for him".
Congratulations Mr. Obama. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "I have a dream", and on November 4, 2008, you gave him that dream.
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
The anti-vote system!!
I want to take a moment to put down in to words a new voting system theory I had in the last presidential election (Bush/Kerry 2004). The 2000 election brought about a new word to me - disenfranchise.
A definition that I like is this:
Disenfranchise - "deprive of civil or electoral privileges"
I thought that I felt disenfranchised in the 2004 election. I did not have my voting privileges taken away, but I felt like I was not given choices I believed in. Therefore I had a moment of genius (in my own opinion) and thought of a new voting system I call "The Anti-Vote".
I'll explain by what I see as current problems and the compare as to how the anti-vote system addresses them.
Problems with current system:
We are stuck with a two party system. The Republican and Democrat parties are the only parties with enough money and numbers behind them to have the power and resources to launch a major nationwide campaign.
We realistically have no other choices except the two main front runners - Democrat and Republican. Other people (independent or in other small political parties) who want to run either don't because they have no way of overcoming the strong party candidates. We, the people are given only two choices - two choices often in which we like neither candidate.
Solution:
The anti-vote. You still would have only one vote, but you can cast a normal (positive) vote OR an anti (negative) vote toward a candidate. If you don't like any candidate, then you can anti vote the candidate you distrust the most.
How does this help?
Now, the major party candidates will have many anti votes cast for them as well. This will bring their vote numbers down significantly. Not only will the United States citizen feel better for having the ability to vote their conscience, but the numbers could come down enough the small independent candidates or candidates from smaller parties actually may have enough votes to be a true contender in the election. If potential candidates with smaller backing have a better chance of winning, then as time goes on, more and more independent/non-Democrat/Republican candidates will run giving us a wider selection pool.
It seems a win/win situation to me. We, the voters have an outlet to vote our conscience and in the long run we will get a larger pool of candidates to choose from. With Republican/Democrat candidates not being "a given", they will have to work harder to gain our trust and possibly provide better candidates in the future.
What do you think?
A definition that I like is this:
Disenfranchise - "deprive of civil or electoral privileges"
I thought that I felt disenfranchised in the 2004 election. I did not have my voting privileges taken away, but I felt like I was not given choices I believed in. Therefore I had a moment of genius (in my own opinion) and thought of a new voting system I call "The Anti-Vote".
I'll explain by what I see as current problems and the compare as to how the anti-vote system addresses them.
Problems with current system:
We are stuck with a two party system. The Republican and Democrat parties are the only parties with enough money and numbers behind them to have the power and resources to launch a major nationwide campaign.
We realistically have no other choices except the two main front runners - Democrat and Republican. Other people (independent or in other small political parties) who want to run either don't because they have no way of overcoming the strong party candidates. We, the people are given only two choices - two choices often in which we like neither candidate.
Solution:
The anti-vote. You still would have only one vote, but you can cast a normal (positive) vote OR an anti (negative) vote toward a candidate. If you don't like any candidate, then you can anti vote the candidate you distrust the most.
How does this help?
Now, the major party candidates will have many anti votes cast for them as well. This will bring their vote numbers down significantly. Not only will the United States citizen feel better for having the ability to vote their conscience, but the numbers could come down enough the small independent candidates or candidates from smaller parties actually may have enough votes to be a true contender in the election. If potential candidates with smaller backing have a better chance of winning, then as time goes on, more and more independent/non-Democrat/Republican candidates will run giving us a wider selection pool.
It seems a win/win situation to me. We, the voters have an outlet to vote our conscience and in the long run we will get a larger pool of candidates to choose from. With Republican/Democrat candidates not being "a given", they will have to work harder to gain our trust and possibly provide better candidates in the future.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)