A Not So Unreasonable Proposal To Change The Way We Pick Our President

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
-George Bernard Shaw

The entirety of the third act of An Unreasonable Man, the recent documentary about Ralph Nader, is focused on the controversy surrounding Nader’s bids for the presidency in 2000 (as a Green Party candidate) and in 2004 (as an independent). The controversy is endless but most democrats feel as if Nader cost them the 2000 election.

The democratic field of candidates for their party’s nomination for president this year has been narrowed to seemingly 2 ¾ (Edwards gets ½ and Kucinich gets a ¼ shout out) . It seems that Edwards has been forced to fight for debate time just as all of the previous candidates had to do up until bowing out of the race (or being forced out of the debates as with Kucinich). With two clear front runners for the democratic tickets and a third candidate holding on by a thread, I can’t help but think of what Edwards ½ candidate effect will be on the upcoming South Carolina primary, an election that could send the winner into Florida and super duper February 5th with a distinct lead.

Although I don’t think it is entirely clear who Edwards will more likely draw votes from, most don’t believe he has a chance to win the democratic ticket even if he does well in the state he won four years ago. I would like to see all Edwards supporters, even the ones on the cusp, be allowed to fully support him, but also have a chance to support a more likely winner, the one who might be also be their second choice.

Think of an MVP (baseball, basketball, football, etc) ballot by the associated press of sports writers. They vote, not only for their top choice, but also their second and third choices as well. A first place vote would get three points, a second place would get two and a third place would get one. Why can’t this be the case for choosing politicians as well? I would love to cast my first place vote completely with my conscious and then a second place shout out to an almost as deserving of a candidate and then a third place shout out to someone who doesn’t have a chance (or, in turn, against my least favorite candidate). This way, we can avoid Edwards voters feeling like he doesn’t have a chance, wanting their vote to count and jumping on either the Obama or Hilary bandwagon at the last minute. If they love Edwards but are scared of Clinton, they can still Vote Obama second and Kucinich third and leave her off altogether. Or vice-versa of course. And of course this will help, and would have helped, lesser-known candidates like Dennis Kucinich and some of the dropouts earlier in the election as well.

This scenario can extend to the general election as well and would be great for third parties. Third party supporters could safely vote their conscious. For example, in 2000 as well as 2004, Ralph Nader supporters could safely vote for him with their first place vote and vote against Bush with their second place vote (or against Bush with their first and for their conscious with their second but my priorities favor the former scenario) & then make a statement vote with their third (for example, voting Leonard Peltier or writing in Howard Dean). I’m talking from a progressive perspective, but this works for Republicans too. Don’t forget about ’92 and ’96 with the Perot factor… Just think, we could have had back to back to back to back Bush terms if the Perot factor were limited. Or, Clinton, Gore, Clinton, Gore (Tipper Gore anybody?).

Okay, I may have killed my own argument with those last two scenarios, but seriously, if it’s good enough for picking a great American sports hero, it must be good enough to pick a president. I mean if you had the choice between having dinner with: Andrew Jackson or Bo Jackson, Andrew Johnson or Magic Johnson, Willie Mckinley or Willie Mays, Tom Jefferson or Tom Brady, Hank Aaron or Aaron Burr (I guess Burr was only a VP. And he killed a man in a duel. Which in my opinion is better dinner conversation than 50 touchdowns or 755 home runs. So scratch that one.)??? Admit it, most Americans would pick the latter in every case.