Just VOTE No!

It's no secret that the United States, land of the free, has one of the worst voting records of any democracy on earth. Partly because we don't have to vote as they do in some countries and partly because we don't care. If I have heard that "they're ALL crooks" once, I've heard it a thousand times.  Since we were one of the first countries on earth to vote for our president, our leader, we designed an electoral system giving the people, in their states, the opportunity to choose their leader. While there are times "they are crooks" probably is true, like several of the corrupt governors now in jail in Illinois, I spend little time talking to such people because I feel they have no right to complain if they can't take the time to vote. As has happened all too often in the last decade, "every vote counts."Ask Al Gore!

Clinton at campaign rally.

Trump ... well, you decide.

     Years ago, now, in college I came up with an idea that would give voters, somewhat like a multiple choice test we were taking at the time, a choice. You could vote for candidate one, two or three but added as a last choice was, "None of the above." IF none of the above won or got 50+1% of the vote, none of those candidates were elected, a new election had to be held in 90 days (similar to elections in England) and none of the losing candidates could run in the re-run election. Why? No one wanted them.

    Least we forget, the 2016 election was held with two major candidates who had over a 60% DISAPPROVAL ratings on the day of the election. It was, literally, a choice between the lesser of two evils. While Clinton may have won the popular vote, she lost the electoral vote partly because she didn't even bother to go to several crucial states thinking she had them in the bag. If there is any lesson in politics, its DON'T assume anything. If you could vote for none of them, few would ever make that mistake again.

     I bring this up because the Sunday DESERT-SUN newspaper here in the Coachella Valley had on its editorial page an article about Sam Chang, a retired banker from Taipei who has, as his mission in life, begun a campaign to add "negative" vote in Taiwan, hardly a bastion of democracy. "The right to vote no," says Chang, is a fundamental human right." I couldn't agree more. 

     He has carried his message around the world but struck gold in Berkeley, CA the home of liberal rights in an already deep blue state. Chang proposes to give voters the ability to use that one vote to cast a ballot against the candidate instead. Each candidate's tally of votes would be a net - between the number of positive and negative votes. Too complicated. I say ... vote for the candidate you like or, if you don't like any of them then check "none of the above."

     While I agree that it would most likely improve voter participation, I feel that it is too cumbersome. If you don't like any of them, just vote against them all. If you like one of them, then just vote for that candidate or that proposition. Let's not beat around the bush.

     I bring this up now because given the government shutdown essentially over a wall the President wants and over 2/3's of the country doesn't want, hundreds of thousands of people are out of work (do not forgot far more than 800,000 government employees are not working because others depend on their livelihood on those that work too), maybe it's seriously time to consider how we vote.

     Many want to scrap the electoral system saying that it isn't necessary anymore. However, be careful what you ask for. The system was designed to give every state a voice in the election process. States like California, Texas and Florida have far larger populations than Delaware, Connecticut, Maryland, or even a huge states with few people like Wyoming or Alaska. Thus a candidate must win not just the popular vote nationally but in each state giving that state a stake in the process. 

     Chang, though, has a point. He hopes the world will become more positive by going negative. It would give voice to many who feel they have been left out of the process. It definitely would make candidates more accountable and sift out the characters who have no right to run based on their personal histories  and hopefully give heart to a better selection of electable candidates.