I was pushing this back in 2006, but only recently came back to it. Given the probably stolen elections in FL in 2000, GA Senate in 2002, Ohio in 2004, and Florida and North Carolina in 2006 (2 Congressional races), it seems our election system has some pretty serious problems and/or corruption in it. Even a Republican cybersecurity expert has said that it is probable that some of these elections were fraudulent. In each state there is an election board and a secretary of state which are supposed to deal with these problems and keep our elections running fairly and smoothly. But corrupt Republican secretaries of state (like Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell) and partisan election boards have helped steal elections. We need honest secretaries of state and nonpartisan or bi/multi-partisan election boards. That is the focus of the Secretary of State Project, started in 2006. The Secretary of State Project was created by concerned citizens to provide an easy-to-use, low-cost vehicle for online donations to key Secretary of State races.

There's more...

Crossposted from John Edwards for 2008 Blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1 1/17/17017/970

"We the People" must demand fair elections and that includes fair debates

With the lack of decorum in the last presidential debate, the uneven distribution of time for candidates, the apparent stacking of attendees with outsiders (from the city in which it was held) and the orchestration for these attendees, the lack of opportunity for consistent rebuttal, I think that it is time to reformat the presidential debates from how they are currently run.    

Presidential Debate Formats change should be part of election reform. Democracy is at risk under the current format.
                           

There's more...

This is an experiment. I did try to do this once before, but I made a few mistakes, and folks around here apparently did not see the point I was trying to make. However, I believe it to be an extremely important point indeed. I am trying to develop a new method to evaluate where you readers stand regarding a certain set of Democratic candidates. So this will be a very limited "election" of sorts. Here's the method:

In its first phase, I will use the approval voting method to determine which candidates you find most acceptable. I will ask you to give just one vote to as many Democratic candidates as you find "relatively acceptable." (This means you should give one vote to each candidate you consider "the cream of the crop." (But they don't have to even be candidates, just Democrats.) For example, you could give one vote to one candidate that you like, or you could give one vote to 10 that you like.) To avoid ridiculously long lists, you must choose not more In 10 candidates.

In order to avoid a variety of difficulties and misgivings, the current 3 most prominent contenders are excluded; so you cannot vote for Hillary, Edwards, or Obama. However, you can give a vote to any other Democrat, whether they are actual current candidates or not.

In a day or two, or when I have 10 or more responses, I will count them up, and announce the two who have won the most votes. In case of a tie, I will wait a little longer for the tie to be broken, or as a last resort, do a coin-toss.

Then I will conduct an "election" between the two who had garnered the most votes in the previous approval voting "election." With this method, since there will be only two contenders to vote for, a third, or fourth (etc.) "spoiler" candidate could not be present to spoil the voting.

There's more...

A few weeks ago, Chris Bowers posted a diary about "the need for more sustainable funding of the progressive, political blogosphere." I couldn't agree more -- and I'm going to do my own small part by buying some blog ads, which I'll come to in just a minute.

But I think Chris' diary also teed up a broader question:  How can all of the elements of the progressive movement join together to put America back on the right track -- grassroots activists, bloggers, donors, elected officials, party leaders, and everyone in between?  Yes, funding the blogosphere is an important element -- and advertising on blogs may be one part of the solution -- but as Chris has discussed, there's certainly more to it as well.

One thing I know we have to do is communicate and coordinate more -- because only through an open exchange of ideas can we truly develop an agenda and an overall message that all of us can get behind and promote in our own ways.  What's more, by blogging and communicating and producing other forms of rich content (like web video, podcasting, and the like), we're not just mobilizing our existing community, we're bringing more people into our movement as well.  And growing the size of the progressive movement -- much of which is happening at the netroots level -- is how we're going to bring about real, lasting change for America.

There's more...

I love the idea of public campaign financing.  I love the idea of making the candidate process accessible to anyone regardless of income, and I think it would be great if our elected officials could be less beholden to big-money interests.  But let's be honest — the only way public financing would work is if it were mandatory, so everyone would have to play by the same rules.  Otherwise, those with ties to those big-money interests could simply bypass public financing and raise much more than a public system would ever be able to provide.  And mandatory public financing is a tough sell to people who were elected by and whose incumbent advantage largely relies on the system as it stands now.  It will be a very long time before we see that happen, if at all.  And voluntary public financing is simply not viable.

Or is it?

There's more...