So, What Am I Really? Democrat or Republican in sheep's clothing?

I think that, nationally, both parties are hopelessly corrupt. I view the corruption largely as a structural issue. Until there is public financing of campaigns, each party will be bought and sold by various owners, aka 'large contributors'. Various groups have huge impacts on policy and legislation by virtue of their financial contributions during and after the election process. I could never come up with an exhaustive list, but here are a few such "owners" that come to mind: the sugar industry, agribusiness, the teachers' union, the trial lawyers' lobby, the insurance industry, etc, etc. So, in my opinion, each party's decisions are tilted toward their big financial contributors.

I support what is known as Instant Runoff Voting. I encourage you to visit the website: instantrunoff.com. Basically, this eliminates 'hold your nose and vote' and it eliminates 'wasted votes' when one votes for a third party candidate. All votes count, and you can not inadvertently help the candidate you dislike by not voting for his main opponent. Their website explains how it works.

I favor this system for a variety of reasons. IRV gives third party candidates an actual chance at winning, because voters will not fear 'wasting' their votes. This allows new political messages and goals to enter the political forum. Just as importantly, it forces the major party candidates back towards the middle. They will have to be sure they appeal to a broader swath of voters to ensure they are elected. Gerrymandering has been a dreadful force in citizen's lives, as it has stacked the voting deck toward self perpetuation of whichever party is in power at the time that voting districts are constructed. In my opinion, the true purpose of political parties is to set up self sustaining machinery, sort of like political DNA, to create self sustaining future replicas of the party apparatus. Citizens be damned. Instant runoff widens the choices voters have, and enhances the political dialogue. Citizens have a better chance of voting for someone who actually represents their point of view.

This system is used in other countries, and in some US cities. I asked a member of the League of Women Voters why they did not support this cause, and she replied that it was 'too difficult' for people to understand. Maybe she was having problems- I have not encountered folks who could not understand it. Naturally, neither major party will put this on its legislative agenda, so only the citizenry can make this happen in our state and local politics. As I recall, the Libertarian party supported this in their platform. It makes sense that a third party would support this kind of electoral change.

Pundits lament the poor turn out in US elections. I think voter apathy reflects the sense that it doesn't matter much- in many but not all ways- who wins, because the winner will do what he has to do to pay back the favors he owes his big contributors, plus follow whatever the party line is. Nuanced, individual decisions by elected folks do occur, but not frequently. When voters perceive that the choice will have an impact, they turn out. We see that in hotly contested elections.

There are so many hard decisions that elected officials face. Yet, neither party wants to face voter wrath at setting limits or defining consequences. With instant runoff, candidates who wanted to challenge legislative ineptitude would have a better chance with IRV than the ice cube's chance in hell they currently face in state and national elections.

So, 'what am I'? I favor legislative processes that are comprehensive, inclusive of all relevant data and perspectives, and that are not pre-biased based on favoritism, cronyism, or party solidarity, or on fear of creating the perception of 'victory' by the other party. Maybe both parties make claim to such a stance, but check to see if their fingers are crossed.