Spoiler argument still not made in US Senate race

I still think it humorous that many before the election would say things like "A vote for Cynthia McKinney is a vote for McCain!" Really? Ted Cross and Chris Candreva of Obama Election Watch sure felt so. So Ted and Chris, please define my vote for me. I thought I voted for McKinney, and Obama won. I feel let down by their expertise on democracy.

Here in Minnesota, I have yet to hear who knows who Dean Barkley "spoiled." Perhaps that is because NO ONE KNOWS who will be our next US Senator. Was it Norm Coleman? Was it Al Franken? Where are all those people who would have derided the Barkley campaign had a winner actually been announced? Dean Barkley may not have been a perfect candidate, but since we do not have NOTA ( none of the above ) on the ballot, he was my next best choice.

The Coleman-Franken ads were some of the worst in Minnesota political history. Their ad hominem campaigns contributed little to raising consciousness of Minnesotans on REAL issues. Dean Barkley was the only positive campaign that did try to change the consciousness of Minnesotans on fiscal sanity, fair trade ( not free trade), opposing the death penalty, energy as a national security issue, etc.

What did anyone learn from Coleman-Franken apart from name calling? Does anyone, apart from hardcore partisans, really feel that they are legitimate to represent our state after their negative campaigning?

Obviously, I believe that Instant Runoff Voting would have helped resolve this situation better. Not only would Minnesota have representation in the US Senate, in addition to Amy Klobuchar, but the negative campaigning would be greatly curtailed. IRV forces candidates to stick to postive messages, and even agree publicly with their opponents on issues. If candidates do this, they can get a #2 or #3 vote and could still win.

Many claim that IRV hurts third parties. Yet 2006 in Burlington, Vermont a Progressive Party member was elected as mayor. In a traditional election, it would have gone to the Democrat.

In Minneapolis, voters are "scared" a Republican could win( even though we have no elected Republicans). In 61B, many voters literally were frightened that a Green was running, because "a Republican could win!" These ignorant voters do not realize that only 5% of their neighbors voted for the GOP candidate, and 30% for the Green. Yet, fear motivates many whereas logic is difficult to adhere to in our culture. IRV eliminates the illogical "fear factor" of voting for a Green or independent.

We need more electoral reform than IRV, like proportional representation or a more digital democracy. But in Minnesota, IRV has the inertia and I think it should be used for statewide elections.

Digital Democracy

Most Americans have become disenfranchised with the current status of
our government. We feel as though we can not truly get what we want,
instead most vote for the lesser of two evils. This type of system is
as outdated as a 1954 IBM. (in actuality it became outdated for new
grassroot ideas starting in the 1890's with the coming of ballot
access laws)

America needs a new democracy, one that truly REPRESENTS each person
as much as possible. This system would have to be digital. I dub it a
"Digital Democracy." In a digital democracy we would split up the
votes for each senator and house representative based on their popular
vote. The "winner" would still go to the capitol and present bills,
but he/she would only have the percentage of popular vote they took at
the election. The others who did not win but at least received 5% of
the vote would be able to vote online on a secure server.

A digital democracy would succeed in bringing more people to the
polls. In 2002 54% of Americans voted, which I consider dismal.Mainly
3rd world countries have participation that low. Some say that the 46%
do not vote because they are content with the current way things are
being run. I disagree completely. All those I know who do not vote
feel that the entire system is a sham made only to help those already
in charge (aka the only 2 parties in American minds).

A digital democracy would allow people to feel they are at least being
represented. How much more empowered would many feel to know that
their vote actually counted? Imagine the Green Party and Libertarians
taking 5% of the house and senate EACH? That would change American
politics forever. A vote for a third party would no longer be called a
"wasted vote."

The only races I feel that a "winner takes all" should be token races
such as President, Governor, and local boards. The 2 parties will
continue to win these until they are forced to change or leave by
those who begin to vote.

How can such a system be implemented? It must be brought into the
public conscience. Either by media such as the internet or through the
third parties.

I believe that the candidates that want this idea implemented on
either a local or national level must take the "Digital Democracy
Challenge." The "Digital Democracy Challenge" is that you will
present and vote for a bill allowing this type of democracy to exist.
Any opponents must also be asked whether they will take the Challenge.
These candidates should be supported by a non-partisan Digital
Democracy network or organization.

Our nation has and is changing as a society and moving into the
post-industrial era. Let's have our democracy move to the 21st century
as well.

It will take a long term effort to undertake a task of this
proportion.
Anyone interested in making Digital Democracy a reality in America
contact me.