Counting my vote

I'll be voting on Tuesday, like millions of others. I'm lucky because I don't live in a "swing" State so I'm not subjected to partisan political presidential propaganda 24/7 which is a big relief. I think it is important to vote, even though I think the system should be reformed so I really feel like my vote counts. Some of the things I am in favor of:

• Full Representation - I don't like the idea that you get all of the electoral votes for a State if you beat the other candidates. You can get less than a majority, if there happened to be three strong candidates, and still walk away with 100% of the electoral votes. In that case, my vote for candidate number 2 or 3 didn't count for anything, except possibly to elect candidate number 1. We saw those kind of things if you accept that Nader voters would have voted for Gore, thereby giving Bush the State. Either get rid of the electoral college or make it more representative of the people's sentiments.
• Ditching the electoral college altogether - It has outlived its usefulness. As heretical as it sounds, our founding fathers were not infallible. The electoral college makes it a strategy game that would be played differently if every vote did count. Perhaps if electoral votes where apportioned like Senators (an equal number for each State) instead of like Representatives (according to population) then we'd have different results and not ignore those less populous States for the California and Texas votes. (Maybe coming from Maine makes me biased.) Or maybe a bicameral electoral college. Hmmm... I think I'm on to something.
• Instant run off voting - It is very difficult to get to a multi-party system of more than two parties when a vote for a third party can result in a vote for the party you don't favor. You end up voting against a candidate rather than for a candidate. A third party probably won't rise to power unless we change something. Being able to vote for your first choice, and also a second choice if that person isn't in the top two, ensure that we will elect presidents with a majority of the vote and therefore the mandate of the people. We will also learn a lot about what people really want by the popularity of third party candidates instead of stifling progressive voices.
• Candidates that are worth voting for - Speaking of stifling progressive voices, why is it everybody (at least everybody I've talked to) feels we could have done better than the candidates we have a choice between. Are these really the two best people in America for the job of president? It is always exciting when the presidential fever starts and there are so many candidates and you hope that this will be the year that a woman or an African American or a Native American breaks through, or at least someone that is different, has convictions, and that makes you think "wow, what a great candidate." It doesn't seem to be about how has the best ideas, but about who has the best chance of beating the person in office. They aren't necessarily the same. Why don't we have Martin Sheen's presidential character, or Mr. Sterling (I loved that show) instead of someone that has to be sold to us through marketing.
• Candidate that stand for something - What do these guys really stand for? You can't come out and say "I stand for the right to choose" because you have to soft-sell your stance to get as many voters as you can. You can't come out and say "I believe in the right to bear arms" because you want to attract gun-control advocates. So you end up giving blathering, pandering responses that don't say anything. "Mr. Candidate, do you believe in the color blue?" "Well, Mr. Debate Moderator, I believe that America is strong, and blue is strong, but not too strong. Red is strong too, and I believe that with strong colors, we can be strong together. I also believe that Iraq is spelled with a 'Q' and that if I am elected, it should still be spelled with a 'Q', which rhymes with blue."
• Voter education in ways that don't involve biased mass media - I haven't figured out how to pull this off, but when the most of what we learn about candidates comes from partisan media outlets, it obviously obfuscates the rheological mien of the nonrepresentational actuality represented by the conciliatory essentia of the largely totemic aspirants as implements of opulence. We need unbiased, popularly available, mainstream sources of information because a democracy relies on educated voters and as long as political parties aspire to control voters rather than inform them, we will not have a democracy "of the people, by the people, for the people." Television and radio networks, newspapers, and magazines should all have disclaimers of their "subjective point of inquiry" as a way of disclosing potential bias. Instead, they have catch phrases like "Fair and Balanced" which mock democracy and critical thinking.

Anyway, that would be a good start. Maybe there should be more radical solutions, too. Vote from home, election week, and voter receipts so would be a start towards enfranchising everyone. Perhaps voting should be a requirement. No vote, no access to government services (like roads, schools, etc). Let's shake it up a bit. If it is unconstitutional, we'll just slap another amendment on there. Whaddyasay?