TWO PARTY SCOURGE
Sometimes, the truth is a difficult pill to swallow. I, half-heartedly in 1992, contemplated running for President of the United States. In the process, I wrote to 32 states in an effort to ascertain the requirements for having one's name placed on the primary ballots in those states. I received replies from 28 states only, which was my first disappointment. In relating my second, I will paraphrase because the wording varied slightly in the 28 replies received.
In order to have one's name placed on the primary ballot of this State, the candidate must be the nominee of a national party, as recognized by the media.
Now, there is mentioned an alternative method, which is that an independent candidate may appear on the primary ballot only if he acquires 30,000 to 40,000 (customarily) signatures on a petition. Despite this requirement, the law is the law, and I must conform. I find it somewhat discriminatory, but this is the reason that I state that your signature is as important as your contribution. Your signature, your financial support and your ultimate vote compromise the package of victory. No YOU - no victory.
I do not profess to have or to be of a party. I have no party animal (no pun intended) or special symbol. I only represent the core principles of simplicity, reality, balance, efficiency and lawfulness. I am not sure how and when a two-party system was formed, how it became accepted and when it became the norm. What I do know, is that today, the attempt to lump perhaps 130 million eligible voters into two columns, a left and a right or democrats and republicans, is preposterous. Who says that all democrats are liberal or leftists? Who says that all republicans are conservatives? Below, there is inserted an illustration, which will show what I believe not to be the case and what I believe to indeed be the case.
I maintain that that the democrats do not range from ultra liberal to moderate and that the republicans do not pickup, where the democrats leave off, ranging from moderate to ultra conservative, as shone in A above. As shone above in B, I believe that democrats range from liberal to conservative and so do republicans, and that there is an overlap of considerable scope and importance. Why do you feel that a President would win an election over his opponent by a 51% to 49% margin? To me, it clearly shows a large divide, created by the voter's only having two choices, because he or she is lumped. What happened to the concept of issues instead of "The man" or "The party"? I would hope to appeal to those, who are to the right-of-left and to the left-of-right, those, who comprise the central portion of figure B. My bundle of simple, efficient, balanced, lawful and realistic programs will have little or no appeal to the ultra-left or ultra-right.
One of my brothers is a retired policeman and small farmer in South Carolina. He is a staunch republican. Though I am sure that he does not subscribe to everything that the Republican Party represents, I suspect that he pulls the straight republican ticket handle. My other brother is a retired union steel worker and a staunch democrat. Though I am certain that he does not subscribe to everything that the Democratic Party represents, I suspect that he pulls the straight democratic ticket handle. Herein lays the rub. Does one vote for 60% of what he believes, or maybe 40%. The object should be to find a way to perhaps achieve 75% or 80% of what one believes. This can come only from a blend of those best features from both existing parties. A very wise person once said, "You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time". This is profound!
Let me state a simple fact. If only one issue is in question, it requires that a minimum of two persons must vote in order to vote for the two possibilities, a "yes" and a "no". Should there be two issues in question or on a referendum, it requires a minimum of four persons in order to vote for all possible combinations, "yes and yes", "yes and no", "no and yes" and "no and no". In the continuance of this progression, the minimum number of voters required to vote all possible combinations for three issues would be eight persons and for ten issues would be 1,024. "No biggy", you say. For 15 issues, it would require a minimum of 32,768 voters, and for 20 issues, 1,048,576 voters. "Still no biggy", you say. Please examine the simple continuum below.
The above graphic is based on 134,217,728 voters, the minimum number required to vote for every possible combination of "yes" and "no" on just 27 issues total. The end result is that virtually every American eligible voter would be required to vote to cover all possible combinations. If then, each voter is represented by a dot, the continuous line or continuum would be formed, as in figure C. In reality, some, who are eligible to vote, will vote not at all or only vote on some issues, so miniscule gaps will appear along the continuum. Conversely, some voters will duplicate the combinations of other voters, thereby creating bulges along this continuum. Gaps and bulges are shone in figure D. My point or question is, "How does one identify the republicans and democrats, along the continuum, with such great diversity of thought and opinion?"
Most importantly in 2008, you will have the opportunity to escape from the deadlock of party lines and party politics, which has gripped government and thus society for decades. If you are disillusioned by getting nowhere, but getting there fast, put on your independent thinkers hat. Analyze independently and vote independently. Do not allow your one part (your vote) in 134 million be cast into oblivion again. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose by voting your independent conscience in 2008. I choose never to be aligned with or defined as any party. You would only be lumped again!
The above illustration simply shows that, the more that the donkeys and elephants look dissimilar, the more they are really the same. Whether figure E is the Democratic Party and figure F is the Republican Party or vise versa, they are basically the same in reality. May I say, "Wolves in sheep's clothing", or is it the other way around? The struggle seems not to achieve but to remain idle. If you observe figure G, the independent, there is no deceit, no clothing (arrowheads) to disguise him. He, the independent, is what he is, and what you see is what you get. He says what he means and means what he says. That is I. I will not disguise my self, my notions or my feelings. To me, being an independent means one must have not only a heart, a mind and a spirit but a spine.
NOTE: All three straight lines in the above illustration are of the same length, but figure G is clear and undistorted.
Thank you, voting citizens of all ages.