I have been sick of voting for the "lesser of two evils" crap for years, myself. That's why I boycotted elections since 1998, until I had the opportunity to vote for Dr. Paul in Michigan's primary in January.
I don't see a dime's worth of real difference between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain. They are all quislings. I won't vote for any of them, unless it is as part of a jury trying to decide between a firing squad or hanging them.
No More "LESSER OF TWO EVILS"
WRITE-IN RON PAUL!
As for me, I am voting for Dr. Paul this November, whether his name appears on the ballot or not. I've never cast a write-in vote before, but I can't think of anyone more worthy of being the first!
RE: ELECTORAL COLLEGEJim. I have to completely disagree with you about the Electoral College, although I can understand why you feel that way. Most Americans don't understand what that is all about, mostly because they know little or nothing about the American Revolution or the principles behind it.
The United States was founded as an early day "United Nations." The States were sovereign and independent, of each other as well as of everyone else. They joined together as a confederation of otherwise independent States, with only a few specific functions being delegated to the confederation which they felt should be coordinated between them. Everything else was to be left in then hands of the people of each State, and the people having the right to freely move to any other State in the confederation.
There was a big debate about the nature of the union in the early days of the Republic. There were those who wanted to form a single, unified nation with the states as mere satrapies of a central government, instead of a loose confederation of independent States. The nationalists tried to push through their ideas at the Constitutional Convention, but they were largely defeated and the new Constitution maintained a federal character for the new government.
Although the new House of Representatives was chosen based on population, the States kept their status as sovereign equals in the Senate. The Senate was meant to represent the State governments (not the people), and the Senators were originally chosen by the State legislatures, although gradually some States started allowing their citizens to vote for Senators instead.
The State governments were also to chose the President who was to enforce the laws passed by the Congress, which is the reason for the Electoral College. Rather than have the State Legislatures make the selection, however, the Founders decided to try to make the process a bit more independent. The State legislatures chose the Electors who would in turn decide who to select as President. They even included a provision that no legislator would be eligible to be an Elector. The idea was that the separate, independent States would each choose their best and brightest to caucus together in that State and choose the best person to be the next President.
Like everything else about the now misnamed federal government, the process became warped into something else altogether by the Nationalists, who won the (also misnamed) "Civil War." The Republicans were the political successors of the Hamilton "Federalists" (who were really
Nationalists*), and they quickly began the process of transforming the federal government into a national government (without bothering to change the names.)
There is nothing in the Constitution requiring a "winner take all" scenario; that is just the preference of the so-called two party system. Any State is quite capable of changing its election rules to allow the selection of each Elector by congressional districts, with two chosen statewide, or to even create "Elector" districts that are independent of congressional districts. The State legislatures cold even reclaim the right to choose the Electors themselves. It is up to each State to decide (as it
should be.)
I hate the trend towards nationalization. I have lived in many different parts of the United States over the years, and while we have a lot in common we are
NOT all the same, and I see no reason why we
should be all the same. I have no desire to live in a country full of "Stepford" people.
So, personally, rather than scrap the Electoral College, I would rather see it restored to its original intended function. Let us make our decisions as
States.
* Politicians have been playing name games for a very long time. The "Federalists" in the 1780's and 90's weren't federalists at all, but rather nationalists who wanted a centralized government that controlled the States. The real federalists were ironically branded as "Anti-Federalists."
Similarly, classical liberals believe in individual sovereignty and oppose collectivism, yet the socialists in the "Democratic" party took the name of "Liberals", making the word mean the exact opposite of its original intent.
