We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

 -US Declaration of Independence

To understand the situation, it is best to reference another quote from Carroll Quigley (historian, author of "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time", and Bill Clinton's mentor): "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, on, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." 

As Ron Paul observed, "That is a profound statement. It tells us what's going on and why things don't change."  The major parties have become the parties of big government and bigger government, few freedoms and fewer freedoms, corrupt and more corrupt behavior. We need more choices - not one choice represented by two candidates.

Choice in Representation

Without completely free and fair elections, the words from the Declaration of Independence are reduced to nothing. Only through the freedom to vote for whomever we choose can we be secure in the other freedoms promised to us by our Constitution. Your ability to give or withhold your consent to the actions of your government is wholly contained in your authority at the ballot box. Democratic government draws its authority from elections. When the government takes up a mistaken policy, their last refuge is the statement that you, the voters, authorized their actions when you voted for them. What they don't want to tell you is how they rig the system to ensure their reelection.

Mike Munger and BJ Lawson on Ballot Access

Did you ever notice how, when we were growing up, all the Communist countries we so despised had words like "Democratic" in their official names? When they held elections, with only one government approved choice on the ballot, we knew they were a complete sham. Now look at your American ballots today. Fully one third of the races for General Assembly have only one official candidate. In races all across the state, the same proportion of elective offices only list one choice on the ballot. Unless you have the name of a government-sanctioned official write-in candidate, and you want to have a choice, your vote will not be counted. This practice was an affront to liberty when we saw it in Communist and totalitarian countries. It is even more repugnant when we find it today in the so-called "land of the free".

We need to have a ballot that offers us several choices. Everyone should have a chance to let their voice be heard at the ballot box. With such free and fair elections, citizens can have the opportunity to examine all the perspectives available on how to solve our problems. Without the right to vote for the candidates of our choice, we are all guaranteed that no one holding any elected office will truly represent our views. 

It is the basic right of every constitutionally qualified citizen to vote or run for public office no matter their political affiliation or the lack thereof. It is discriminatory for the state to enact any regulations that restrict these basic rights.

Political Free Speech 

With McCain-Feingold, the federal government took even great steps in limiting our right to free speech. It prohibits us from running ads containing the candidates' name within 60 days of a primary and 30 days of a general federal election. Effectively, only political committees are able to freely exercise their freedom of speech during this time. That concentrates power in the hands of the well-funded, established political parties.

McCain commenting on willingness to abridge our
First Amendment rights in order to shape election results.

Greater limits were also placed on our ability to personally contribute to our candidates of choice; however, political parties and PACs have flexibiltiy in contibuting to particular candidates. This, again, places the power of reaching voters in the hands of established political parties and well-funded PACs. While I have no issue with special interest groups forming PACs and endorsing those that support their viewpoints, I oppose limitations placed on individuals - those who are essential to grassroots campaigns.

We must preserve the right of every individual and all groups, whether the support or oppose our positions, to express their opinions and advocate their issues. No arm of the government may infringe upon this constitutional right.

Instant Run-Off Voting 

IRV Explained

IRV acts like a series of runoff elections in which one candidate is eliminated each election. Each time a candidate is eliminated, all voters get to choose among the remaining candidates. This continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote.

Isn’t this too complex for the voter? All the voter has to do is rank one or more candidates. It’s like renting a video or picking an ice cream: What video do you want? That’s your first choice. If they don’t have that video, what would you like? That’s your second choice. If they don’t have that, what’s your third pick? That’s all there is to it. It’s as easy as 1-2-3

There are several advantages to this process.

• If a run-off election is required, the IRV approach can save taxpayers considerable time and money compared to having a second election.
• Run-off elections typically have a much smaller turn-out and result in a small minority of voters deciding the outcome. By allowing all voters to participate in the 'run-off' without the hassle of a second trip to the ballot box, the election results reflect the will of a greater number of voters.
• Often-times, when a run-off election is required, military (and other) voters frequently do not have sufficient time to complete and return the second ballot before the election results are tallied. This disenfranchises those who serves in our military. IRV allows them to specify their choices in advance should a run-off be required.
• IRVs also give voters a greater opportunity to select their preferred candidate rather than feeling forced to vote for one of the major parties or a front-runner. As an example, it allows a conservative voter to cast his vote for his preferred candidate without fear of splitting the conservative vote and placing a liberal in office. If the preferred candidate loses with the least number of votes, the other conservative will receive the votes in this case and may win a majority of the votes.
• Opponents, who are often those most opposed to allowing third-parties and independent candidates on the ballot, complain that the system is too complex for voters. However, voters such as those polled right here in Cary, NC, disagree and preferred IRV.

On the Issues: 

• Ballot regulations for third parties and unaffiliated candidates which require thousands of signatures or prohibitive filing fees to gain access to the ballot are overly restrictive.  Recognizing the need for free and fair access to the ballots, I would support using congressional authority under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution fix the ballot access problem in congressional elections.
• I do support allowing the right of states to require a a petition in order to place a candidate on the ballot; otherwise, the ballot could be overwhelmed with 1,000's of candidates who are running simply to see their name on the ballot without actually having the intent or public support to campaign for office. I do not think the number of signatures required should  be over-burdensome to legitimate candidates.
• I support accepting write-in votes for any candidate that wishes to register; currently, North Carolina statutes allow a state to not count write-in votes. In other words, you no longer have the right to vote for anyone you choose; you may only vote for candidates approved by the government. If voters opt to vote for that candidate, their voices should be heard and their ballots should be counted. 
• I support keeping the Electoral College System and oppose any attempt to replace it with a National Popular Vote to elect the President of the United States.
• I oppose federal government involvement in regulating the conduct of state and local elections.
• I support instant run-off voting (IRV); this methodology allows our service men and women, as well as any others that can't participate in the run-off, to have their voices heard. Further, as an example, it allows a conservative voter to cast his vote for his preferred candidate without fear of splitting the conservative vote and placing a liberal in office.
• I do not support designating Election Day as a national holiday; however, I do support initiatives that that ensure voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots. Further, I would endorse initiatives to move elections for federal offices to a Saturday to increase voter participation.
• I oppose prohibiting ads containing the candidates' name that are funded by third-parties and airing 60 days before a primary and 30 days before a general federal election.
• I oppose contribution limits on federal campaigns and parties providing fulland timely disclosure via the Internet is made regarding who is funding the campaign; further, any entity that is impacted by legislation should be able to have its voice heard on the issues impacting them; this includes churches and other organizations. I do, however, support campaign limits on those federal candidates accepting public funding.
• I support the right of special interest groups to form Polical Action Committees (PACs) to endorse and financial support those candidates that share their views.
• I support giving voters the option of voting for "None of the Above" - should "None of the Above" receive a majority of the votes, the position would go unfilled and unfunded until the next regularly-scheduled election.
• I support "paycheck protection" which would ensure that no one would be forced, as a result of union or other group membership, to contribute to any candidate's campaign against their will.
• As a requirement for lawfully voting is US citizenship, which mandates English proficiency, I oppose bilingual ballots and the additional costs incurred for this by taxpayers.
• I support Election Day voter registration; this practice often boosts voter participation by up to 10% and, contrary to popular belief, helps reduce voter registration issues since the process is managed by trained staff rather than less-prepared, but well-intentioned, DMV and library staff.
• I support, in order to protect the integrity of our elections and minimize fraud, requiring government-issued photo IDs to participate in federal elections.
• I support restoring voting rights to convicted felons who have successfully repaid their debts to society and those harmed by their actions.
• I support tougher penalties for those convicted of voter fraud and the corruption of our electoral process.
• I support the use of electronic/mechanical devices to tally election results providing the results can be audited and the integrity of the election maintained. As an example, the voting device should generate a paper receipt displaying how the voter cast their votes and a transaction ID number. The voter should then be able to enter this transaction ID number at a Web site to confirm this is how the vote was recorded and used in the final tally.

Of Note:

• Given an "Excellent" rating by North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections.