A change of strategy seems to be in order. The marathon campaigning of the big boys prior to the 2008 election was so off-putting to me that I didn't register my candidacy until several months into 2008. Not that I was worried about the media dragging me into that morass, you see, just that I couldn't bear the feeling that there was any sort of connection between me and . . . them.
The upshot was that I got nary a nibble on my candidacy - not one questionaire from an organization of do-gooders pretending that non-major candidates deserve attention, too.
So this time around (writing in Oct 2009) I'm helping myself to a heaping head start. This isn't solely to give myself an unfair advantage; there's work to be done between now and then.
This time I am offering three different platforms, and in the three years leading up to the election, you get to vote on your favorite. Send me an email stating your choice: Platform 1, 2, or 3.
I promise to abide by the platform chosen by the people.
PLATFORM 1: Up until now, my presidential platform has always been one, simple thing - pure democracy in the White House:
AND IF ELECTED . . .
Every presidential action will be in accord with majority will. Period.
While my presidential platform and my proposal for a simple system of justice based on common sense and conscience called unarchy share the same foundation - a basic faith in majority will - I trust you not to confuse the two.
If elected, no presidential action will ever be taken without first taking a vote - a simple matter with telephone and internet technology. Everyone may cast a vote on every action. Everyone is, in effect, co-president. If I ever act in opposition to majority will, somebody shoot me.
If you want a campaign slogan: "A vote for me is a vote for you."
What could be simpler and clearer? Still, the radicalness of pure democracy provokes a continual stream of questions and comments and objections. Since these are often very similar, or exact repetitions, you might find responses to your own concerns scattered in the summaries of earlier election campaigns below. I believe they make pretty interesting reading. But, by all means, fire off any relevant question and I'd be happy to address it right here.
PLATFORM 2: Given that there's not a social problem we can hope to solve as long as the population continues to grow without bound:
Negative population growth, NOW!
After all, when we've choked ourselves and the earth into oblivion, none of the burning "issues" - security, justice, health care, education, poverty, you name it - matter one whit.
Wiping ourselves out also strikes me, personally, as an incredibly stupid thing for the most advanced race in the galaxy, if not universe, to do to itself. (See my "Human race is special" page.)
PLATFORM 3: In the event that by 2012 the American public is completely fed up with "doer" presidents:
No presidential action . . . period!
Yes, a president that will do nothing. The U.S. government will have to limp along on its other two legs.
And would that be so bad?