Douglas Adams

Once again, Ron Paul has the inkling of an important idea, but he ruins it with paranoia and a ridiculously futile recommendation. 

In a statement yesterday, Ron Paul announced that "our two-party system offers no real choice" and that the "real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues."  Insofar as he's complaining that neither Republicans nor Democrats are really dealing with fundamental issues about the size and role of government, he's absolutely right. 

Unfortunately, in typical Ron Paul fashion, his recommendation to address the two-party system is absurd.  Either don't vote, he says, or vote for a third party candidate.

The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess.  [...]

For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.

Look, I have no problem with those who choose not to vote - voting is, after all, irrational - but there is no shortage of non-voters; they accounted for 36% of US adults in 2004. Without a specific trigger mechanism for them to re-engage in the electoral process, non-voters will simply be ignored.

And unless there are structural changes made to the electoral process, voting for these particular third party candidates will be equally futile.  In particular, I think the Libertarian Party is an excercise in futility, or even counterproductive.  Once again, Ron Paul has identified a problem...and offered an absurdly ineffectual solution which only demonstrates that he hasn't really thought about how to solve the problem at all.

Here's a better idea: Require that None of the Above be an option in every race. If None of the Above gets the most votes, replace the candidates and vote again until "the consent of the governed" is actually given.

It would force the dominant political parties to compete for the dissatisfied voters; it would give the alienated voters a choice; it would reduce the massive advantage that incumbents have; it would ensure there were no unopposed elections; it would ensure that a broader range of political philosophies were represented at the polls.  It would, in short, be far more democratic than the current, restricted process - something our "open" political opponents should appreciate and support - and far more useful than Ron Paul's absurd recommendation.  (more information on NOTA voting here)

That's the sort of transformative, game-changing, serious initiative that Republicans should use in every State to win back a reputation as the reform party - and potentially earn back millions of alienated limited government voters.