We must each decide in our heart of hearts why we are here. Is this all a publicity stunt? If not, we should not be wasting each other’s time. Is this a way to split off support for Hillary or Rudy? If so, it is unconscionable. Are we making a political statement? If so, it must be a darned good statement about either returning the government to the people or seeking common ground. We need to ask ourselves if we are serious about winning, for if we truly find common ground on the divisive issues of the day, like taxes and abortion, we will be victorious.
If we are serious, we must go beyond nominating a candidate for President. There are two reasons for this.
The first reason is that a serious effort will yield, as the measure of their success, not just a share of the popular vote and ballot status, but the winning of enough electoral votes to throw the election to the House of Representatives, where each state has one vote and a majority of states is required to elect a President. Therefore, we must run candidates for the House, especially in states where we might achieve a majority, a plurality or a stalemate between the two major parties, forcing one of them to form a coalition with us, preferably behind our candidate.
The second reason is that if we would prevail, the President we elect needs a majority in the Congress in order to govern. We cannot hope for a majority if we don’t run candidates.
You will note the placement of this comment in 3., Rules for Nomination. This is not accident, as I believe the nomination of the presidential and congressional candidates is vital to our success.
I propose that we adopt a form of indirect voting for President, rather than a national multi-ballot direct electronic vote. Instead of choosing the presidential nominee directly, delegates would choose their candidate for the House of Representatives. Each House candidate would, prior to balloting, cast their votes for President using Instant Runoff Voting. Delegates would then vote for House candidates based upon their qualifications, the issues and how they have voted for President. With the exception of House candidates who gain a majority of votes, if a House candidate’s Presidential preferences are eliminated in early rounds of IRV, they are also eliminated from contention (which is likely the case anyway). The result of this process is a solid slate of candidates, a majority of which are strongly behind the presidential standard bearer, which is a selling point to pass the Unity*08 program.
This process should also affect the platform. Presidential candidates must not only listen to Delegates on platform issues, but also have the right to raise questions to be voted on. I say this as a likely presidential candidate. I plan to attract swing voters from the jaws of both major parties, particularly on the issues of taxation, Social Security and abortion (which are all related, as I will explain later). If I am to raise these issues in the nomination process and presumably in the general election, I would like to know if Unity*08 members are behind me, so not only should the Platform Committee be able to ask questions of the candidates, but the candidates should be able to ask questions of the Delegates.
