Dear Editor:
I thought I'd interrupt the usual "Matt Presson sucks" editorials with something else. Variety is the spice of life.
Have you ever stopped to listen to the reasons people vote for a presidential candidate? It probably follows one of two formats. Option 1: "1 really like (independent candidate), but s/he doesn't stand a chance against Bush and Gore. I don't want (Bush or Gore) to win, so I'm voting for the other guy." Option 2: "I'm voting for (Bush or Gore) so (Bush or Gore) won't win."
How negative!
I think, when the electoral process was founded, people used to vote for the person they felt was best qualified to serve both country and people. Today, we've fallen into the habit of voting for the lesser of two evils. And even then you still end up with evil.
Let's face facts. The Dermoplicans and Republicrats are essentially the same party, backed by the wealth of emerging megacorporations. Is this the fairness that's supposed to be inherent in the American system of justice and equality? How can it be fair to all the other independent candidates when they're excluded from televised presidential debates -- and the people who select who can debate are all Demoplicans and Republicrats? Is it any wonder that all independent candidates were blackballed from the debates?
Obviously, it's time to start seriously considering reforming the electoral process so that every candidate gets a fair shake. I've come up with two ideas that are much fairer and would probably get the nation back into the voting booths.
The first idea is to give every voter two votes. The first vote works like the old fashioned votes did -- you vote for the person you think would be the best president. The second vote I've named the "No Way In Hell" vote. You vote for the person you do not want to become president -- and this vote subtracts one vote from that candidate's total.
The second idea would require the cooperation of a television network. It's a combination of "Survivor" and "Big Brother," both of which already have proven track records. All the candidates are stuck in a typical, middle class house that's rigged with cameras. Voters can watch using the Internet, and each candidate will have ample time and opportunity to debate with all the other candidates.
During normal work hours, the candidates have to go out and work minimum wage jobs. There'd be more cameras there, too. (This is where the "Survivor" aspect comes in, and we would get to see for real if they were actually capable of balancing a budget.) Voters would then, over the course of several months, vote off candidates they didn't like.
And we'd know how the final candidates acted after watching them debate, work, and go about their lives We wouldn't have to wonder if Bush is actually (still?) a moronic party animal or if Gore is really as creative and exciting as a hunk of dirt.
