Vote As If It Matters!

The United States of America is a free country. That's what they teach us in "free" government-run schools. We hear it in the media. Our politicians proudly shout it from the bully pulpit. It must be true. We live in a democracy. We all get to vote. As a result, we get the kind of government most of us want. Right?

If that's true, let's try a little experiment: Make paying taxes voluntary. What's that you say? No one would pay his or her taxes? Why not? If most of us want the government that our politcians devise and our taxes support, wouldn't we be willing to fork over our fair share to support the government that we want?

It could work like this: The tax code would be very simple– since taxes are voluntary, there would be no exemptions and convoluted formulas. The government sends you an e-mail with a link to a secure web page that contains an itemized donation request, though luddites could get paper forms in the mail if they choose.

In the on-line version, there would be a line item for each government program you are asked to support. Click on the item and get a detailed explanation of what you will be paying for. If you disapprove of the program, choose not to pay for it. Don't like the war in Iraq? Don't pay for it! Think it's a just cause? Allocate your entire tax payment to the war effort. Throw a few extra bucks in if it pleases you. Every program, from NASA to food stamps, would be subject to your personal approval. Think the whole government is a corrupt waste? Opt to pay nothing.

This would be great for those thorny issues that divided us, like abortion or the war in Iraq. Nobody would be forced to pay for things they don't approve of. In effect, we'd be voting with our dollars.

But, of course, we don't live in a free country. We're forced to pay for foreign adventures we may not want; right-to-lifers are forced to subsidize abortions; atheists must pay for "faith-based initiatives."

The government uses our tax money to help tobacco farmers while shelling out more of our money for ad campaigns that tell us tobacco is deadly; then we pay still more for the medical care of those foolish enough not to heed the warnings. It goes on and on, boondoggle after boondoggle. We're forced to pay for it all.

Our taxes fund subsidies to multi-billion-dollar corporations, powerful unions and other special interest groups that in return finance the campaigns of our elected officials. These same interests sponsor the "unbiased" commercial news media, and also fund grants for much of what we see on "non-commercial" PBS. That's how they determine which candidates get media exposure and who we get to choose between at the polls.

The Democrats, Republicans and the media feed us "bread and circuses", and try to make us believe that there's a big difference between the two political parties that control this country and the meager candidates they give us to choose between. Have you ever wondered, (given the greatness of this country), why we're stuck with meager choices like "Bush or Kerry" on Election Day? Are they really the best we can hope for? Don't kid yourself, whoever gets elected, it will be business as usual.

Don't misunderstand– I don't think there's a grand conspiracy afoot. Just as the free-market is not controlled by some central planner, yet manages to get goods and services efficiently distributed, government, (with no devious cabal behind it), will make decisions that extend its power and authority, even if it ends up oppressing those it was meant to serve. It's fear of this happening that caused our nation's Founders to design a limited government. We limit government to protect our freedom.

One reason we're stuck with a two-party system, is the Electoral College. As things stand now, if you're a Republican in a "blue state," you know that your vote will not count in a presidential election. The same goes for a Democrat in a "red state." Only if you're a Democrat or Republican in a "swing state", your vote might count– if your candidate wins your state. If you're a Libertarian or a Green or of any other political persuasion, why bother getting out of bed on Election Day? It's a sham.

Another reason the two-party system prevails, (this would be easier to fix), is that the presidential debates are rigged. The League of Women Voters, a non-partisan group, used to run the debates and they included third-party candidates. Then The Commission on Presidential Debates took over. They are a bi-partisan group, (Democrat/Republican), with major corporate backing. They exclude candidates with less than 15% in the polls. How can an under-funded but worthy third-party candidate get their ideas before the people if they can't enter the debates? Go to this site and learn more. Also sign their online petition. Call the Kerry and Bush campaigns and demand that they participate in debates run by The Citizens' Debate Commission. Tell them you will not vote for them if they refuse.

_____________________________

One person, one vote. Sounds fair, right? What if there are five candidates and you like three and hate two? If you had five votes, you could vote "yes" on three and "no" on two. It's called Approval Voting and has been found to yield election results that more people can tolerate. There are even more promising methods, but one step at a time.

For example, imagine there are five serious presidential candidates. Three say the troops stay in Iraq "till the job is done." They may vary in how they define "till the job is done," and may also have very different stances on various domestic issues and foreign policy. One of the remaining candidates says he'd sign the order to bring the troops home the minute he's been sworn in, no matter what happened in Iraq. The final candidate would do the same, but he promises to nuke all terrorist-sponsoring states.

Both the hawk and the dove that promise immediate withdrawal would probably not win. We'd be left with picking between the three moderates. We'd be able to allow other issues to enter the debate, since all the remaining candidates essentially agree on the "big issue." Which candidate inspires our trust? Who seems to have a better grasp of economic issues? Who has better hair?

Right now, we have a choice between Bush, who'll keep the troops in "till the job is done," and Kerry, who'll keep the troops in "till the job is done." Bush does not care what the world thinks about us and Kerry wants the UN to run our foreign policy. Both are backed by moneyed interests, who don't have your best interests at heart. I guess, for now, our choice is between "Tweedle-dumb" and "Tweedle-oui-oui."

Now go out there and vote! With FEELING! Like it MATTERED!

P.S.

Even though the system stinks, I still think it's important to vote for as many Libertarian candidates as you can. If you're not Libertarian, vote for any other "alternative" party candidates that you can agree with. It sends the message: "We'll bother to vote, but we're not voting for the status-quo." It also helps to keep the alternative parties on the ballot, so that if we ever change the system, we'll actually have some real choices on Election Day. Register to vote!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.