Ralph Nader has announced that he will run for president again. And people are already saying that he might take enough votes from the Democrat nominee to swing the election to the Republican nominee. Some believe that he kept Al Gore from becoming president in 2000. If they are correct, thank you Ralph Nader. But seriously, this problem needs to be fixed.

The problem is not that third party or independent candidates get into the race and act as spoilers for one of the two major parties. The problem is that the present system discourages good third party or independent candidates from running. That is, the major parties apply a lot of pressure to keep a candidate from running who might siphon off some of their votes.

What we need is a runoff system for the general election. We could hold the first election on the first Tuesday in October. Then the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes would advance to a runoff election on the first Tuesday in November.* With this process it would take a serious third party or independent candidate to keep the two major party candidates from reaching the November election where they will compete only against one another. But it would allow a candidate to challenge the major party candidates without becoming a spoiler.

Of course someone could argue that with this runoff process a fourth candidate could still spoil the chances of a more serious third candidate, but a two election runoff process is a lot better than what we have now.

A runoff process like I've described is the best way to nurture the emergence of a third party capable of challenging the two existing major parties. This is why we aren't likely to ever have a runoff election. The two existing major parties aren't going to approve it.
_______________

*Most state and local elections that hold runoffs don't require a candidate who receives a clear majority of the votes to compete in the runoff. In this case the runoff is unnecessary since the candidate has already received more votes than all the other candidates in the same race combined. In the race for president though the top two candidates would advance to a runoff even when one of them receives a clear majority of the popular vote. This is because presidents are selected by the Electoral College, not by the overall popular vote.

---

Yesterday I recommended that we go to a runoff process in the election of our president. Today I'm saying that Florida should go back to holding runoff elections for state and local offices. We used to have runoffs but our legislators eliminated them. Runoff elections cost more but the real reason they were eliminated is that runoff-less elections favor incumbents.

Incumbents running for reelection can generally count on getting about a third of the vote without lifting a finger. There are a lot of mindless voters out there. If even a struggling incumbent lifts a finger she can probably pick up a few more votes. This just about guarantees an incumbent 40 percent of the vote -- provided he is not in jail. This means that all the challenging candidates have to fight over the other 60 percent. For one of them to win he has to hold all the other challengers to less than 20 percent. This is difficult when there are more than two challengers.

Consider these results from a race that includes the incumbent and four challengers:

In an election without a runoff this incumbent retains her office despite the fact that 60 percent of the voters wanted someone else to hold the office. In a runoff Challenger 1 would stand a very good chance of defeating the incumbent. Forty percent of the vote is a very weak showing for an incumbent.

A runoff election process won't hurt deserving incumbents. In fact, a popular incumbent will probably be elected without having to compete in the runoff. A runoff will make it easier to get rid of unpopular incumbents. But then they are the ones who got rid of the runoff process.

Let's level the playing field by returning runoff elections to Florida. I can think of many better ways to save money than by corrupting the election process.

---

My name is Barack;
My daddy was black.
My name is Hussein;
That gives me pain.
My name is Obama;
I had a white mama.
I am Barack Hussein Obama!

I went to Harvard Law,
And a new way I saw.
Change is what we need;
That I have decreed.
Seek not to define,
But the pitch do refine.
Promise a better way,
But how? Never say.

I am the chosen one;
I am the golden one.
Cast your vote for me,
And change you will see.
I'll soothe your pain;
I'll boost your gain.
I'll remove your strife;
I'll charm your wife.

Need help my brother?
That is no bother.
What I need to provide,
You just decide.
The means will be easy,
I'll just tax the sleazy.
If they dare complain
I'll tax them again.

Free markets have failed;
The factories have bailed.
An energy crisis we face;
Our dollar is in disgrace.
More government we need;
That is my creed.
The central planning way
Is the course I'll stay.

I'll get us out of Iraq,
But then I'll take stock.
If al'Qaeda doesn't leave,
I have a plan up my sleeve.
To our enemies I'll talk,
And concede if they balk.
Our friends I'll plan to attack,
To kill bad guys in the sack.

My name is Barack;
My daddy was black.
My name is Hussein;
That gives me pain.
My name is Obama;
I had a white mama.
I am Barack Hussein Obama!

---

The Associated Press reports that:

"California parents who don't have teaching credentials no longer can home school their children, according to a recent state appellate court ruling."

"Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote in a Feb. 28 opinion for the 2nd District Court of Appeals.

If this is an accurate quote, Justice Croskey is an idiot. Or California is an idiot state. But we already know that, so what's my point?

Home-schooling parents should rebel by sending their kids to school naked. If the state is going to assume the responsibility for educating their kids, why should the parents have to furnish their clothing? California already provides transportation to school and lunches for kids that can't afford them. Why not make them provide clothing too? And lunches for all the kids? And pay for their medical treatment if they get sick at school?

Home-schooling parents should sue the school system every time their kids get anything less than all As on their report cards. They should sue every time a teacher provides incorrect subject matter to their kids.

But most importantly, home-schooling parents should organize and demand a face-off with the public school teachers to determine who is the smartest. I suggest the format of the television show, Are You Smarter than a Fifth-Grader? The parents without teaching credentials would be the fifth-graders and the teachers the contestants. This should be a public event conducted statewide and perhaps covered by local television stations.

I know. This won't ever happen because the public school system knows that the parents would win. The show doesn't ask questions like:

How should you react if James wears a dress to school?
A. Ignore him
B. Call him a sissy
C. Ask him if his parents are in financial trouble
D. Applaud his courage

Only credentialed public school teachers know the answer is D. A simple parent might choose A or C.

A reader's question prompted me to add this update:

The US Constitution does not grant the federal government the right to educate children. (But this fact is ignored by liberals and "compassionate" conservatives alike.) The federal government's limited powers are enumerated in the constitution and all others are (supposed to be) left to the states. This means there is nothing to keep the states from running a public education system, but it is my belief that they don't have the right to compel parents to enroll their children in that system. Nor do I believe they have the right to impose a curriculum on home-schooled children or set the qualifications for home-schooling parents.

This is a matter of individual liberty, but also a matter of the quality of education that children receive. It is a fact that on average home-schooled and private-schooled children are better educated than public-schooled children. It takes some gall for a government to force children into an inferior education system.

---

As you probably know, Hillary Clinton ran a commercial suggesting that she will be better prepared to handle a national emergency than Barack Obama. She asked whom do you trust to take that 3:00 AM telephone call?

Some talking head suggested that if Clinton becomes McCain's opponent in the general election, he should run a variation of that commercial. In McCain's commercial Hillary would answer the phone and then cover the mouthpiece and say: Bill, you want to take this? It's Putin.

I'm suggesting that Obama might want to use it in the primaries. In his commercial, as Hillary answers the phone the screen splits to show the caller is Monica Lewinsky. Monica says: Hi Hill, may I speak to Bill? Hillary shouts: (Bleep) off you bitch!! She then slams the phone down and glowers at Bill.

Obviously, impersonators would have to be used for Bill and Hill. But Monica might be enticed to play herself.

---

Most of the commentators are misreading Jeremiah Wright and his disciple, Barack Obama. The commentators keep looking for lofty motivations for their crusades when they are just snake-oil salesmen. They do what they do for fame, fortune and power.

Wright made his outlandish statements in his pulpit because he knew it was what his congregation wanted to hear. He knew it was what got them revved up and caused them to put more money in the offering plate. He is no different than any of the high-profile, financially successful preachers around the country -- black or white. None of them got there by being unremarkable.

Obama joined Wright's congregation because he knew it would advance his "community organizing" efforts. He was working in a predominantly black neighborhood so it made sense to become involved in a predominantly black church. And when it worked for him then he saw no reason why it wouldn't continue to work. He either agreed with Wright's views or was willing to overlook them as long as he was getting what he wanted from the relationship.

But, you might ask, how could he not see that his long and close association with Wright would haunt him when he entered the national political scene? Perhaps because he didn't anticipate becoming a prominent national political figure until it was too late to disassociate himself from Wright. Remember, he was first elected to national office less than four years ago.

Politicians and preachers are pretty much alike. They both know that to be successful they have to tell their followers what their followers already feel to be the truth. Can you imagine a preacher telling his congregation that even if they attend church regularly, do everything he tells them and tithe faithfully it won't make any difference in their lives now or in the hereafter? Can you imagine a politician telling voters that even if they contribute to her campaign and vote for her she probably won't be able to do anything for them if she is elected? If one did he or she would soon find themselves having to sell used cars or shill for erectile dysfunction medications for a living.

I don't doubt that Pastor Wright has done a lot of good for his community, but I would bet my life savings that he has done the most for himself. I don't doubt that Obama will improve the lives of some if elected, but I would bet my life savings that he will do the most for himself, his backers and other favored special interests.

---

I started to lose confidence in government when, about fifty years ago, it came up with its scheme to "save daylight" by cranking the clock ahead by an hour. A wise old man said that was like cutting off one end of a blanket and sewing it onto the other end to make the blanket longer.
_______________

I saw this advertisement on a web page:

"I Got Scammed 27 Times -- Avoid Work At Home Online Scams! I Will Show You The ones That Work."

Just the person you need to help you avoid scams, right?
_______________

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has strongly criticized China's government for seeking to contain the riots in Tibet. I wonder what Pelosi's position would be if the Hispanics in California started rioting violently and demanding independence from the US. The Tibetans may have a stronger case for independence than the California Hispanics, but why should a member of our government be splitting this hair?
_______________

The debate over the science and evidence of global warming may not be over, as Al Gore likes to insist it is, but it seems to me that it has become irrelevant. Those who expect to profit immensely from government (taxpayer) grants and subsidies seem to be driving the runaway train now.

---

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has endorsed Barack Obama because "he stands the best chance of bringing this country together." Right Bill, a man devoted to a minister and church that has spewed hate for "white America" for years is just the man to bring this country together. Do you really think the voters in this country are that stupid? Why don't you just tell the truth Bill; your calculations led you to believe that Obama has the best chance of beating John McCain in November.

I believe that the non-brain-dead voters are tired of this "bringing the country together" nonsense. The only way I want this country united is behind my political beliefs. Any other honest voter would admit that the only way he or she wants the country united is behind his or her political beliefs. The only sense in which this country will ever be united is against some real and imminent external threat. And that hasn't happened since World War II. It will never be united in regard to internal politics.

To politicians like Richardson and Obama the country is united when they win. The country is united when they have the power to force their socialism on the rest of us. The country is united when they have the power to squelch dissent by labeling it as racist and divisive. The country is united when they have the power to dictate acceptable behavior. The country is united when they have the power to indoctrinate your children. The country is united when they have the power.

Let's keep the power out of their hands. Then we can determine how much they really want the country united.

---

CBS News is reporting that Hillary Clinton exaggerated the danger she faced during a visit to Bosnia near the end of that conflict in 1996. A few days ago she said that her aircraft landed under sniper fire and that she and her entourage had to run with their heads down to their vehicles. CBS video shows that she actually walked casually, amicably greeting people along the way, with her teenage daughter at her side.

A Barack Obama spokesman said Clinton's Bosnia story "joins a growing list of instances in which Senator Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policymaking." I suppose lost on him is the fact that Obama has no experiences to embellish. In 1996 he was still in the early stages of being taught how to unite the country by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

I keep wondering how any sane adult could seriously consider either one of them as the leader of this country. And then I remember that what the Republicans are offering is not all that great either. But I will hold my nose and vote for John McCain.

---