by 
It seems to me that the current method that we select our candidates has a problem. Well, actually, I have many problems with what is going on today as far as our system of selecting people in office, but one of them seems to be more aggravated this year than in years past.
Basically, this year is the first year since I’ve been old enough to appreciate politics that I really didn’t know who I would vote for if I even had a vote in the primary (more on that later). There really was no candidate for the Republican Party nomination that I totally agreed with.
- I liked Huckabee for his Christian roots, his perspective of morality and government, and for his social conservative stands– but I don’t like the nanny state, big government, and open borders.
- I liked Romney for his fiscal policies, his commitment to family values– but I don’t know that I can always trust him, and what went down in Massachusetts says to me that he’s much more controlled by the legislature than I want the executive to be.
- I liked some of the things I heard about Thompson, and yet he was weak on family values.
- I like McCain on… pro-life, Iraq war– but if he’s really for stem cell research and open borders then I don’t know that I can totally support him1
The problem is that I didn’t have just one pick, I had people that I disliked more than others, but no way to express my preference other than voting for the one I disliked the least.
In times past I thought that one way to solve this problem was to actually vote issues and let some computer actually decide who to vote for– that way I could vote for the person that most matched my beliefs2 .
But having watched this year’s primary season, I believe that something along the lines of how we voted for class president back in 6th grade would be more appropriate. I believe that we should have some form of proportional voting system where we could not only vote for the person that we like the most, but also for our runners up.
Now, maybe we could weight the positions, or be able to vote for someone we really liked multiple times (I’m not sure of the fine details), but I believe that if we were able to truly express our opinions by selecting not just one, but two men, we could better have someone that represents the will of the people.
And furthermore, I think that something needs to be done to take our government away from a two party system. Whether it’s through defections in the ranks or a grass roots movement, I think that we should do away with the big tents and have multiple selections for President rather than just two “effective” ones. Only then do I think that we would get rid of “electability” as a factor in choosing our leaders, and concentrate more on the things that do matter.
Historically, there have been many attempts to move away and add a third party, and they’ve all been absorbed by a more moderate traditional party!
Katie, do you think that this is a good thing? I mean, I’m not talking about just wanting a third party, but how about five parties?
I understand the dilemma. If we were to move to having more parties, there would be less likelihood that any one person could actually win and get a majority of the vote, and then it would go to the house and senate to decide– as it did in the early years of the Republic. But would this be a bad thing?
It seems to me it’s time to let the two parties crumble so that we can have a whole host of ideas come out instead of having to have party discipline and talking points, etc. I think it would improve the health of the whole government if it was truly representative of the people instead of the people having to compromise in order to get someone that they may only agree with in part.
I don’t have any answers on how to improve the political process. I just know that unless we continue to pray for and demand better candidates we won’t get them.
I share the same problems/concerns with each of the candidates that you have. You put them into words very well.
Christine @ Serenity How?’s last blog post..Reality Check, Please
Well, there are radical ideas and then there are the more sane ones. Personally, I think that there’s a lot of corruption that needs to be addressed– either through more intelligent voting or limiting voting. Direct Democracy simply leads to more corruption and anarchy.
Actually I don’t have a particular opinion whether it’s good or bad. I only was stating historical fact!