There is another set of issues (like tax policy, welfare, social security, and health care) where both Gore and Bush espouse the positions of the multinational corporations and banks, but present these with minor differences which they pretend are major.

These issues are debated with much passion and heated rhetoric, but the bottom line is the same. The tax burden will continue to fall mainly on working Americans, with big business, investors, and multinationals getting a free ride. Welfare will continue to be expanded for corporations and constricted for single mothers and needy children. Social Security will continue to be financed by the world’s most regressive tax. And health care will continue to be unavailable to millions of Americans, with more health-care dollars going to insurance companies and for-profit conglomerates than to doctors and nurses.

So Gore’s tax policies are not quite as favorable to the rich as Bush’s. The Clinton-Gore welfare reform that Prince Albert is so proud of is probably worse than we’d have gotten under Dole, and more Draconian than anything proposed by Dubya. So Bush’s proposed step toward privatizing Social Security is scarier than Gore’s benign neglect. Bush’s proposal for expanding medicare coverage to give some help to seniors with pharmaceuticals and catastrophic expenses (while still catering to the insurance companies) may actually be marginally better than Gore’s. All this is nibbling around the edges, magnifying nuances, using empty rhetoric, and avoiding like the plague the obvious solutions to real problems.

We have identified so far two classes of issues: (1) those where Gore and Bush differ greatly, but where neither one is likely to make a difference; and (2) those where the federal government can actually bring about enormous improvements, but where Gore and Bush hold only slightly different positions, neither of which will bring much real change.

There is yet a third category of issues — those of supreme importance, with millions of lives in the balance, but where Gore and Bush hold identical (and erroneous, unconstitutional, and immoral) positions. These are the issues of great importance to the ruling billionaires and their corporate entities, issues on which they can tolerate no differences at all. These are issues like foreign policy, military policy, international investment and trade, the "War on Drugs," the incarceration epidemic, prison slave labor, the death penalty, the Middle East, the war against Iraq, the rape of Yugoslavia, the blockade of Cuba, the continued occupation of Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. On such issues, the two are indistinguishable. And in all cases, they are wrong. Under either one, foreign and military policy will continue to be conducted for the benefit of the wealthy few. The defense budget will continue to reflect the greed of the weapons manufacturers, not the needs of national security. Our sons and daughters will continue to be used to kill the sons and daughters of working people in other countries. The federal government will continue to give away not only its sovereignty, but that of American states, counties, and cities to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other international corporate cartels. Locking up Americans will continue to be our fastest-growing industry, with the majority of those incarcerated guilty only of victimless crimes. Inmates will continue to be used as a pool of very cheap labor by corporate America. The War on Drugs will continue to be used as an excuse to escalate a war against leftists in Colombia in a tragic repeat of our mistakes in Vietnam, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and so on, seemingly ad infinitum. The death penalty will continue to be used to eliminate political prisoners and to teach Americans that violence is okay if the government does it. People like Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu Jamal will continue to rot in their cells or face execution. Arabs will continue to be blamed for all the problems in the Middle East. Sanctions, bombing, and the deaths of two thousand children per month will continue in Iraq in the continuation of the war started by George the First. The Serbs will continue to be demonized in Yugoslavia because of their dedication to socialism. The impoverished people of Cuba will continue to suffer because Castro refuses to sell them out to corporate interests. And the Central Intelligence Agency will continue its covert actions around the world, resulting in the deaths of more millions.

The effective tie vote in the November election may have at least one beneficial result — a broad demand for electoral reform. But we must be very careful that we do not allow this to degenerate into cosmetic change, like doing away with the Electoral College or moving to online voting. (Indeed, these "reforms" may do more harm than good.) There are far more important reforms that are desperately needed, especially campaign finance reform, instant runoff, proportional representation, media reregulation, and improved ballot access for third parties and independents.

Where do we go from here? Hopefully, we can come together to concentrate our efforts on changing the system to sever the connection between big money and political power. Those of us working for peace, social justice, freedom, and the environment can never succeed so long as political power is in the hands of those who profit from war, poverty, incarceration, and pollution. Before all else, we must change the system!

The argument between Democrats and Republicans is usually presented as one between big government and small government. Framing the argument in that way serves the interests of the wealthy members of the ruling elite. But it distracts us from the real argument, which is over whom government serves. They don’t want the argument framed that way, because they have fixed it so that government serves them, not us.

Our job is not to worry about whether taxes are too low or too high, or whether the federal government is doing too little or too much. Our job is to change the system so that government serves the needs of the people, not the big corporations and banks. This should be our guiding principle in the coming debate over electoral reform. Change the system to empower the people. Period!

The following are specific reforms which need to be addressed:

* elimination of Electoral College.

* modernization of voting and counting

* proportional representation.

* majority vs. plurality requirement.

* instant runoff.

* improved ballot access for third parties.

* same-day registration

* holiday voting

* limitations on exit-poll reporting

* campaign finance reform.

* media reregulation.

Senator-elect Hillary Clinton has already stated that she will introduce legislation to eliminate the Electoral College. Others (mostly Democrats) have jumped on the bandwagon. The impetus for this is undoubtedly the fact that although Al Gore apparently won the popular vote by some 200,000 votes, he is in danger of losing in the Electoral College 271 to 267 if he in fact loses Florida.

Ironically, until election night it was widely speculated that George Bush might win the popular vote but lose in the Electoral College. Bush was comfortably ahead in the polls, but was seen to be in danger of losing where it counts. He was expected to win big in many small states, while Gore would barely win in enough big states to give him the 270 electoral votes needed, in spite of losing the popular vote by a projected 3 million votes. At that time it was the Republicans who were wondering if it wasn’t time to discard the anachronistic Electoral College. No one expected the reverse to happen. So it would seem that opposition to the Electoral College comes from the side whose ox is getting Gored ... or whose Gore is getting Bushed.

Yes, the EC is anachronistic. Yes, it does seem to violate the principle of "one man, one vote," by making some votes count more than others. (I’m sure Gore would gladly trade 10,000 California votes for 1,000 from Florida.) Yet, without it, things might be worse. If the Electoral College were eliminated, what presidential candidate would bother going to Kansas, much less Montana or Wyoming? All campaigning (except for the occasional photo-op on a farm or ranch) would be done in major metropolitan centers. Rural voters would be ignored. there just aren’t enough of them to bother with.

The Florida fiasco of butterfly ballots and hanging, pregnant, or dimpled chads will likely lead to a demand to do away with antiquated punch-card voting machines. And it’s about time. But in favor of what? Optical scanners seem to be much more reliable, and they reject spoiled ballots instantly, so the voter can try again. Some people are pushing touch-screen technology, computer voting, and even on-line voting. But many of us worry about the possibility of rigging a paperless election. There’s nothing to recount. There are lots of options from which to choose, some better than others, some cheaper.

Many of our presidents and other elected officials have been elected by less than 50% of those voting. Some have been elected with less than 40% of the popular vote. In most countries, this is not allowed. Runoff elections are held until somebody gets a majority. This tends to free people to vote their conscience. You would never again have to hear "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush," because it wouldn’t be. Never again would you have to settle for the lesser of two evils (except maybe in the runoff election). The result is that third party candidates and independents will get lots more votes. How many people really preferred John Anderson in 1980, but were afraid to vote for him, because they would be "throwing away their vote"? How many really wanted Ross Perot in 1992, but similarly didn’t vote for him? (Exit polls suggest they were a majority. If everyone had voted their real first choice, he would have won!) And, of course, how many really wanted to vote for Nader in 2000, but were afraid to because of their enormous fear of George Bush?

Requiring a majority instead of a mere plurality makes all the difference in the world, and is perhaps the most important reform for breaking the stranglehold of the corporate-controlled Republocrat parties.

Instant Runoff is a simple device used by many municipalities, clubs, and political parties. In the computer age it is cheap, easy, and instantaneous. The voters are given a list of candidates and allowed to rank them. In essence, the computer asks them (1) Who is your first choice? (2) If he or she is eliminated and there is a runoff between the remaining candidates, who would your choice be? (3) and so forth for as many choices as you desire to make.

If IR had been used for this election, I would have voted for (1) Bob Bowman, (2) David McReynolds, (3) Ralph Nader, (4) John Hagelin, (5) Al Gore. If none of my first four picks managed to get a majority, and it came down to a runoff between Gore and Bush, my vote for Gore would have counted just as much as if I had listed him number 1. That’s how runoffs work. But with IR, it doesn’t delay the vote count at all. It’s truly instantaneous (provided modern voting machines like optical scanners are used).

A couple of years ago, the citizens of Florida enacted Proposition 11, which took Florida from being one of the worst states in which to get on the ballot, to the best. Instead of tens of thousands of signatures gathered under nearly impossible conditions, a party could get its candidates on the ballot by simply holding a national convention and nominating a presidential and vice-presidential candidate. Such a change needs to be made in every state. Ballot access is so difficult in some states (Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, New York, California) that it usually requires millions of dollars just to gather the required signatures. The rules and deadlines have been made so stringent (by the Democrats and Republicans, who don’t want competition) that year after year they are challenged in court. None of the third-party candidates this year succeeded in getting on the ballot in all 50 states. Ross Perot with his billions could afford the professional signature-gatherers it takes to get ballot access. But most potential candidates cannot. You shouldn’t have to be a billionaire (or sell yourself to some) to run for office.

The preceding four reforms have been primarily about empowering third parties. The next three have to do with increasing voter turnout and making it easier for working people to vote. Same-day registration is one such measure. It helps transients who had to move avoid losing their right to vote. It is controversial, because critics charge that it is subject to abuse, with unqualified people voting, and some people voting in more than one precinct. There would have to be measures to prevent such abuse.

Many working people have a difficult time getting to the polls before or after work when the lines are longest. One way to alleviate that is to vote on a weekend or to declare voting day a new national holiday. The difficulty would be in preventing it from becoming just another big shopping day, like the day after Thanksgiving. How do you get the stores to actually close, so their employees can go vote?

Campaign Finance Reform was popularized this year by John McCain and Bill Bradley, both of whom supported the McCain-Feingold bill. This was an extremely modest step toward true CFR. It would have outlawed "soft money," money used on a candidate’s behalf by the party and not subject to the reporting rules and limitations imposed on "hard money." Soft money allows the wealthy, big corporations, and labor unions to give as much as they want, because they’re not giving it directly to the campaign.

I would go much further, barring the use of private funds completely once a candidate passes the exploratory stage, and financing campaigns with public funds and free TV and radio time to qualified candidates.

A first step might be to limit campaign contributions to those from persons eligible to vote for the candidate. This would mean that corporations and labor unions could not contribute. It would also mean that senatorial candidates would have to get all their contributions from within their state and congressional candidates from within their district. Contributions could be capped at $250 per election cycle per person. In addition, the amount of his own money that a candidate could use should be limited to perhaps 10% of the annual salary of the job being sought.

Eligibility for public funding might be based upon receiving contributions from a percentage of the voting population (based on the number voting in the previous general election). Experience has shown that signatures do not mean support. They only mean time spent gathering them, and if the gatherers are paid, it doesn’t mean anything. But if a person makes a financial contribution (minimum $10), it means they are interested in that person running. A candidate would have to receive such contributions from say 0.1% of voters in a congressional district (with a minimum of 200), 0.03% of those in a state (minimum 500), or 0.01% of those nationwide (minimum 5,000). Thus a typical congressional candidate would have to get about 250 contributions, a senatorial candidate anywhere from 500 in Wyoming to 4,000 in California, and a presidential candidate about 10,000. Paid gatherers would be prohibited and there would be severe penalties for kickbacks and other circumventions of the law’s intent.

The Supreme Court has made it difficult to bring about real Campaign Finance Reform because it has promoted two great myths: (1) that corporations are people (with the rights and protections given to the people in the Constitution and Bill of Rights), and (2) that money is speech (as defined in the First Amendment). The end result of these nefarious myths is that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend as much money as they want buying up politicians and manipulating the electorate. This is unacceptable. It is certainly not democracy.

"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson, 1816

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
Abraham Lincoln, Nov 21, 1864

"If monopoly persists, monopoly will always sit at the helm of government. I do not expect monopoly to restrain itself. If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to own it."
President Woodrow Wilson

The struggle we are engaged in is not new. But it is approaching the point where the only alternatives are tyranny and violent revolution. Now, there is still a chance for peaceful change. We must seize this opportunity, while there is still time. We must change the system!