Why shouldn't you be allowed to cast your vote for someone you really like, rather than being forced to choose among "major candidates" you don't like?

Every individual citizen makes his/her own choice whether to "stick to principle" or to compromise and vote for the "lesser of two evils" (or of ten or twenty evils).

Suppose you are very finicky and will not vote for anyone you don't agree with totally. Suppose the only person who you can vote for in good conscience is yourself. If your political positions are the right ones and no candidates agree with your positions, why shouldn't you be able to vote for yourself? Or, why shouldn't you have the option of choosing from among hundreds or even thousands of candidates, so you can find someone you really believe in and can vote for in good conscience?

If you yourself don't want that choice, that's fine for you. But what about someone who does want that choice? Why shouldn't they have that choice? Just because you are willing to compromise and vote for the "lesser of two evils" is no reason why everyone should be forced to do so.

The only issue is practicality. How would it be possible to have a thousand names on the ballot? Or if a write-in space is permitted to write in a candidate's name, how is that vote to be counted? If the vote is not counted, what is the point of casting the vote? Ballots are counted by machine, which can only read the punches or the checked boxes, etc.

Well there is a simple procedure that could offer this choice to voters. The number of candidates could be virtually unlimited.

Let all the "write-in" candidates register, pay $200 or $300 registration fee, and be assigned a candidate ID number. On the ballot let there be a "write-in" section which allows voters to punch in or enter the ID number of the candidate of their choice. If the number of candidates is above 100,000 but less than a million, that would be a six-digit number to punch in. There would be six rows of numbers, with each row having numbers 0-9, and the voter would punch in one number from each row in order to designate the six-digit ID number of his/her candidate.

(It should also be allowed for a voter to register someone else's name, who might be reluctant to register, if that voter is willing to pay the fee in order to get that person on the official list of write-in candidates.)

Now there might also be a space in which to write the candidate's name, or type it in with the voting machine keyboard, however it would be the punched-in ID numbers which would be counted, while the written-in or typed-in name would be recorded for future reference if there should be some need to check it later for some purpose.

With a system like this in place, all citizens would have a choice to vote their conscience and know that their vote will be counted, even if their candidate receives only a dozen or so votes. The final official vote count would be published somewhere, not necessarily shown on TV or published in all the papers, but published in the official record, including on the Internet, so that anyone who wants to look through the minor candidates can do so and note the vote count for each minor candidate.

Why shouldn't this be done? Why shouldn't minor candidates, and the few citizens who choose to vote for them, be entitled to this respect? This isn't asking much. It doesn't require that government policies be changed in order to accommodate minority political views. These minority voters would not get their way. But what is wrong with recognizing that this candidate exists and was able to win these 50 votes, or these 5000 votes? Why should these candidates and their supporters be treated with contempt, so that their existence is virtually denied and their ideas are effectively censored out of the public discourse?

What are we afraid of that we must suppress these minority views from the process? Are the ideas of minor candidates "dangerous"? "subversive"? Why not let each of them have their small place in the vote count and have official standing, even though their voice will not be represented in the legislature or in the executive office?

In a practical sense, these small minority views, or most of them, might never take hold in society. But it is possible that some people will look through the vote numbers and notice that this or that minor candidate won more votes than the others, and out of curiousity they will check into the particular candidate, or the minor political party, in order to read the platform and learn what that candidate's positions were. This could eventually lead to that candidate's views being taken seriously by some citizens and gaining more interest, and perhaps later making headway in the major parties, or in some of the third parties that have ballot status.

So providing for write-in candidates and counting the votes for them could lead to desirable change in society and the introduction of new ideas that could prove to be valuable in shaping policies in the future. And any ideas that are bad and dangerous would be rejected in the normal process of the public dialogue. There is no reason to think anything dangerous or subversive would ever gain public acceptance because of the inclusion of the minor candidates in the process.

There is virtually no cost to including a "write-in" section on the ballot as described above. It would require only a small space on the ballot, to allow the ID number to be entered. The filing fees paid by the write-in candidates would be sufficient to cover the cost of providing this on the ballot.

Inclusion of such a "write-in" procedure would lead to encouragement of more citizens to participate in the voting process, and these would be citizens who are more educated and discriminating and critical in their thinking. Why shouldn't we want to encourage such citizens to participate, rather than discouraging them as we do now by forcing them to choose among candidates they find distasteful?

Publish all the candidates' platforms.

Along with the voters' pamphlets, sample ballots, etc., there can also be a booklet listing all the write-in candidates (or all those who pay a price to be listed) giving their political platforms or agendas. The candidates would have to pay a fee large enough to pay the cost of printing this booklet and mailing it to voters (and perhaps leaving a small profit to go into the state's general revenue).

The voters then would have the choice of going through the write-in candidates to learn what each one's political positions are. Perhaps, to save on costs, these booklets would be mailed only to voters who request them. The handbook mailed to all voters would have a conspicuous request form in it announcing the write-in candidates booklet and making it easy for the voter to send for it. Then these booklets would go only to those voters who are seeking alternative choices and not to those who are content with the few choices printed on the ballot.

"I'd rather be right than President."

Wasn't Henry Clay right when he spoke these famous words? Doesn't this sentiment have a legitimate place in the American political landscape? Why shouldn't we honor Henry Clay by giving voters the opportunity to choose for themselves whether to "vote their conscience" or vote to win?

No one should dictate to another which choice to make. Winning is important, but being right is also important. We should not impose onto citizens in the freest nation on earth a system which takes away from them the choice to choose "right" over winning. The system will be a healthy one, the healthiest it can be, when it opens up to all citizens and gives them the maximum freedom to choose what they think is best when they cast their ballot. Inclusion and free choice and diversity of opinions should be the guiding principles here, not suppression and intolerance toward alternative ideas and imprisoning citizens in a 2-party dogmatism or doctrinaire Left vs. Right dichotomy that shuts out free thought.

Practicality excludes giving every citizen full freedom to have his/her individual opinions placed into the legislative arena and be given full public exposure. Not every citizen may be provided a national audience on prime-time TV to expound upon his/her political philosophy. But this country which boasts being the freest should go as far as practical to let each citizen have a real voice and a way to participate that respects their individual principles and conscience.

Those in power and their supporters may continue to have their way. But isn't that sufficient? Isn't it enough that their ideas are allowed to dominate in the government where the actual decisions are made? Can't they be satisfied with this and let those with different ideas be free to vote independently rather than having to join a herd mentality in order to participate? Can't they let us as individuals declare with our vote the course we prefer while still keeping the control and power to make the actual decisions?

Why, in addition to having power, do the political dominators need to intimidate us into voting for someone we don't agree with? They have the herd stampeding generally in the direction they dictate -- what more do they want? Why do they need to pretend that we're all in their herd and that we all agree and choose that course? What harm is it to them to let the stray dissident voices and candidates have their proper place and be counted?

Anyone running as a write-in candidate, for any office anywhere, may have a link here to their website announcing the details of their candidacy, such as their platform, etc. Click here.

For a listing of various third parties, go to Politics1.com.