As I have written about before, the three-stage electoral system which Louisiana now uses for its Congressional elections was adopted to solve a specific problem. Under the two-stage system that Louisiana previously used (and still uses for state and local elections), Louisiana's Congressmen were sometimes not elected until December, a month after the Congressmen from the other states. This one-month delay put Louisiana's Congressmen at a disadvantage in committee assignments and in other matters.
It is ironic, then, that the new three-stage electoral system has, in its first usage, caused a one-month delay in the seating of our new Congressmen, which would not have occurred had we been using the old two-stage electoral system. If we had used our old system for these special elections, the 6th District and 1st District seats would already be filled. Instead, two-sevenths of the voters in Louisiana will continue to go unrepresented in the U.S. House of Representatives until after the third round of voting on May 3.
There is no reason that this had to happen. There is no requirement that states use the same electoral system for special Congressional elections that they use for regular Congressional elections. California uses an electoral system for its special Congressional elections that is very different from the one used for that state's regular Congressional elections. This allows them to fill their vacant Congressional seats with a minimum of delay.
The only reason for using the same electoral system for special Congressional elections that is used for regular Congressional elections is the concern that voters might become confused if they are required to switch back-and-forth between the different systems. That does not apply in Louisiana, though, since voters already have to deal with two distinct electoral systems (i.e., one for Congressional elections and another for state and local elections).
The Louisiana Legislature should have foreseen the serious problem that this new three-stage system would create when used in special Congressional elections. Even if none of the other electoral reforms that I have suggested is adopted, the state legislators should amend our election laws to allow future special Congressional elections to be conducted under Louisiana's traditional two-stage electoral system, so that future Congressional vacancies can be filled as quickly as possible.
Representation delayed is representation denied.
More on IRV in Vermont
Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker has written a blog post which contains a very clear explanation of instant runoff voting and an excellent criticism of Vermont Governor James Douglas' veto of that state's IRV proposal.
Here's a little of it:
Instant runoff voting, as you (being a reader of this blog) probably know, eliminates the “spoiler” effect in the one-winner elections standard in the United States; guarantees that the winner has at least grudging support, of a majority; and guarantees that a candidate whom most voters really, truly don’t want can’t get elected. The way it works is this: (a) You list your choices in order of preference. (b) If someone gets an outright majority of first choices, that’s it. (c) Otherwise, there’s an “instant runoff”—the biggest loser gets dropped from the counting and his or her voters’ second choices get counted along with everybody else’s first choices. (d) Repeat (c) till someone has a majority, though this is almost never necessary. I.R.V. is used in Australia and Ireland, where voters like it fine, and in several American cities—including Burlington, Vermont.
...
Third-party candidates often run in Vermont, and usually they’re Greens or other leftish types. In Vermont, therefore, I.R.V. would probably help Democrats more often than Republicans. Governor Douglas is a Republican. So he vetoed it. This was expected.
Also expected was that he would not mention partisan considerations in his veto message. What was unexpected was the message’s laughably abysmal intellectual quality.
For Hertzberg's analysis of Gov. Douglas' defense of his veto, please read the full article.
New Election System Will Likely Cost Louisiana an Extra $6,000,000 This Year
"The additional cost of three elections over two is substantial." Political analyst Jim Engster says one of the reasons Louisiana used the old open primary system was to save money. Secretary of State Jay Dardenne says because of the closed primary system, Louisiana will spend an additional one million dollars on special elections in the spring and he says there is a very strong possibility the state will have to spend an additional five million dollars in the fall. Dardenne says money is not the reason for the change. "Under our old open primary system, we were potentially sending our congressmen later than other states who had completed their elections in November, whereas, we potentially had runoffs in December."
Full article
I do want to point out that it's not the closed nature of these primaries that is costing the extra money. These elections cost more because they're spread out over three stages, instead of two. A three-stage election would cost just as much even if it used open party primaries.
Instant runoff voting could allow us to compress the Congressional election cycle back down to two stages or less. If it were used in the party primaries, then the party nominees could be chosen in one round. Of course, in the general election IRV could provide an even greater benefit: the person elected would have to have the support of more than half of the voters casting ballots.
Alternatively, we could have just one general election in which all the candidates run, like the elections Louisianans are used to. However, we could use IRV in that election, thus allowing a candidate to be chosen by an absolute majority in one round. We could hold that election in November and our Congressmen would be chosen in November. It would solve the problem that prompted our electoral changes in the first place, but without adding the cost of extra elections and without resorting to plurality-voting.
If there was a concern that there would be too many candidates from one party in that general election, then the parties could devise and pay for some process (e.g., caucuses, conventions) to choose their own nominees.
Washington State May Consider Instant Runoff Voting
Interesting column.
It also provides a link to this legal history of Washington's electoral systems.
Books on My Bedside Table
According to an article in the Baton Rouge Advocate, Laurinda Calongne and Woody Jenkins recently answered questions about their reading habits: "Both keep the Bible by their bedside. Calongne said she sometimes gets up at 4 a.m. to read the Bible. Jenkins said he tries to read the Bible in bed at night but usually falls asleep because he’s tired. Calongne said she also reads whatever her school-age daughter is reading. Jenkins said he likes biographies."
That's interesting. I also enjoy biographies and juvenile/YA books.
After reading the above article, I made an inventory of the books I have on my own bedside table. Here's what I found:
Three bibles (one NAB, one KJV, one NIV)
- Obviously, this proves I'm three times as holy as either Jenkins or Calongne.
- I think it was the textbook that was assigned (almost 18 years ago) for my college Louisiana history class.
- The Eye in the Pyramid
- The Golden Apple
- Leviathan
- I have a subscription. I'm a big fan of the lowbrow art movement.
- I've always been interested in Louisiana's more colorful politicians.
Jay Chevalier's Earl K. Long and Jay Chevalier: "When the Music Stopped"
- See above entry.
- See above entry.
David Duke's My Awakening
- See above entry.
- Good times.
- It's a novel about a girl who's half-human, half-bonobo.
- A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples
- Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism
- The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
Hunter S. Thompson's The Great Shark Hunt: Strange Tales from a Strange Time
- An anthology of several of Dr. Thompson's shorter writings.
Martin Ottenheimer's Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriages
- It's a critique of the peculiarly American laws that, in some states, prohibit first cousins from marrying. Ottenheimer points out that the eugenic arguments that are usually made in support of these laws are based on urban legends and other misunderstandings of genetics.
A copy of Interview magazine from September '04
- There's a Selma Blair interview/pictorial.
Ben Edward Akerley's The X-Rated Bible: An Irreverent Survey of Sex in the Scriptures
- Regarding the Bible, Mark Twain said, "It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies." Akerley's book examines the obscene parts.
Volume 1 of the Louisiana Civil Code
- There's lots of useful information in there. Every Louisianan should read it. There's a free version online.
I feel like I should clarify, though, that those books are on my bedside table just because I either refer to them often or enjoy skimming through them or have taken them down from the shelf recently for some particular purpose and haven't yet gotten around to putting them back.
Here are the books that I'm actually in the process of reading right now:
A.J. Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible
- Jacobs' previous book (The Know-It-All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World, in which he chronicled the adventures he had and the things he learned while reading the entire Encyclopedia Britannica) is one of my favorite recent nonfiction books. This one's also very good. As the title states, he tries to follow all the rules in the Bible for a year.
Mitch Cullin's Tideland
- It's a novel about a little girl who spends a summer alone in an old house on the Texas prairie. I liked the movie, so I bought the book.
Charles Murray's In Our Hands: A Plan To Replace The Welfare State
- Murray suggests that we should replace all our welfare programs (including farm subsidies, corporate welfare, etc.) with a guaranteed minimum income of $10,000 a year. It's a fascinating idea that makes a lot more sense than our current system.
Instant Runoff Voting in Vermont's Congressional Races
The Vermont Legislature has just passed a bill requiring the adoption of instant runoff voting for the state's Congressional elections, starting with this year's elections.
If the governor signs the bill into law, then Louisiana will have a good opportunity to observe the results and decide whether a similar reform should be made here.
For reasons I've stated earlier, instant runoff voting is highly preferable to the plurality voting system that the Louisiana Legislature (and, more specifically, the Democratic and Republican leadership) short-sightedly chose to implement as part of the electoral changes that took effect with this year's Congressional elections.
UPDATE: Vermont's governor vetoed the bill. There's still a chance, though, that the legislature will override the veto.
Abortion
Earlier today I noticed that the Louisiana Right to Life Federation has me listed on their website as having not responded to their candidate questionnaire. In fact, I never received the questionnaire. I have contacted them to see how this happened.
In the meantime, here is a summary of my position on abortion:
Abortion should be prohibited except when necessary to prevent the death of the mother. That prohibition should be enacted at the state level, as are most laws dealing with violent crime. The Congress should take appropriate action to return the question of the legality of abortion to the individual states.
If you have any questions for me on this or any other issue, please ask.
Better to have run and lost than to have never run at all.
With all the complaining people do about politics, it seems like more of them would be willing to submit themselves as candidates. I hate the concept of an uncontested election. No one in a position of power should ever go unopposed. I also can't stand seeing an election in which all the candidates are just slightly different versions of the same person. Voters should always be given a wide range of options from which to choose. (That's why I was disappointed that no one chose to run in the Green, Libertarian, and Reform primaries in either the 6th or 1st District special elections. Those parties really missed an opportunity. So did the voters.)
Certainly, it takes a bit of courage to run a race that you know (and everyone else will know) you might lose. I can say from experience, though, that running a no-hope campaign can be fun and satisfying. Also, even a losing candidate can have an important impact on the debate, the election, and the larger political environment.
For example, Michael Cloonan, who was usually dismissed as a little-known candidate with no chance of winning the 6th District Republican nomination, had a huge impact on that race. Even though he got less than 1.5 % of the votes cast, his 425 votes probably changed the outcome. If Mr. Cloonan had not run and if his supporters had stayed home or if a tenth of them had voted for Woody Jenkins (even with the remaining nine-tenths going to the other two Republican candidates), then Mr. Jenkins would have won the Republican nomination in the first round. Instead, the Jenkins campaign will have to keep answering questions from the Left and from the Right. That's the way the democratic process is supposed to work. No candidate should be able to slip into office due to the voters' dissatisfaction with a too-narrow field of candidates.
So, I would like to thank Michael Cloonan, Paul Sawyer, Jason DeCuir, Joe Delatte, Andy Kopplin, Ben Morris, David Simpson, and Vinny Mendoza for their admirable participation in the democratic process. They fulfilled a civic duty that most Americans are either too meek or too proud to fulfill.
But who is the prettiest one?
I received an email from someone asking about the "Dedicated to the Prettiest One” inscription at the bottom of this blog. I generally think it’s gauche to explain one’s own jokes or allusions, but I decided to answer this question.
Most directly, it is a reference to the Principia Discordia, which contains the phrase. The writers of the Principia, however, were quoting a much earlier source.
According to the ancient Greek myth The Judgment of Paris, the Golden Apple of Discord was inscribed with Greek wording which is usually translated as “to the fairest” (with “fairest” being used as a synonym for “prettiest”).
Three goddesses - Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite - each claimed the apple. Though Zeus was chosen to pick the winner, he didn’t want to risk alienating anyone. So, he delegated the responsibility to a mortal named Paris.
Each goddess offered Paris a bribe to encourage him to pick her. In the end, Paris awarded the apple to Aphrodite, who had offered him Helen, the most beautiful woman in the world. (I’ve always thought the story would have been so much better if Paris had skipped the three major candidates and awarded the apple to Helen instead.)
Anyway, the consequence of all this vanity, bribery, and corrupted judgment was the Trojan War.
The ways in which this legendary beauty contest mirrors contemporary electoral politics are obvious, I think.
"The terrorist and the policeman both come from the same basket. " -- Joseph Conrad
Gun Play
(Mc) Cain
Lest anyone think the title of my last post was just hyperbolic rhyming, here's a bit of a recent column by Chuck Baldwin:
Even as a young man, McCain was "a strikingly violent man." [John McCain's biographer Robert] Timberg quotes McCain describing his propensity for violence, even as a youngster, saying, "At the smallest provocation I would go off into a mad frenzy, and then suddenly crash to the floor unconscious."
You can read the full column here.
Insane McCain
Actually, if he were only insane, it wouldn't be so bad. The problem is that he's also wrong on the issues that matter most and he's bad for America.
Can you imagine the harm this man would do if he ever became president?
Yes, I know, he was a war hero, but so was Benedict Arnold.
It looks like I'll be voting third-party again.
Why am I running as a member of the Constitution Party?
The simple answer is that I’m registered to vote as a member of the Constitution Party. I have been since around the time of the 2004 presidential election, in which I voted for the Constitution Party nominee. I had left the Republican Party a few years earlier in reaction to the rise of the neoconservatives within that party. The George W. Bush administration confirmed my opinion that the Republican Party had become a vehicle for followers of a political philosophy which devalues civil liberties and ignores national borders (including those of the United States).
I do not agree with the Constitution Party on every issue. In fact, I completely reject some beliefs that some Constitution Party members probably see as central to their philosophy. I do, though, agree with the Party on most individual issues (if you want to know my position on any specific issue, please ask and I’ll do my best to explain) and I think the Constitution Party could serve a valuable role in U.S. and Louisiana politics. In the coming years, as traditional conservatives continue to be taken for granted by the Republican establishment, I expect that the Constitution Party or some similar party will attract many more ideological refugees.
My ideal political party would probably be somewhere between the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party. I had considered starting such a party (and maybe calling it the “Bill of Rights Party”) to serve as an ideological home for secular paleoconservatives, Rothbardian libertarians, and South Park (ex-)Republicans. I still think that would be a good idea, though it might be easier to simply take over the Louisiana Reform Party, which seems to be adrift right now, and make it into the sort of party I just described.
If anyone wants to take that idea and run with it, please feel free to do so.
About the silliness
There have been inquiries about some of the more unusual elements of my campaign. Let me try to explain: They are satire. Each of the silly things you see on this site is a parody of some analogous element of “legitimate” contemporary politics. I don’t know if many people are going to get the points I’m intending to make or even understand what I’m trying to lampoon, but it doesn’t really matter. I enjoy my own jokes.
You may have guessed that I don’t have much respect for the current political world. I do have great respect for the basic process and I’m slightly saddened by its failure to produce good leadership, but I’m not going to be morose about it. (I might be a little bitter at times, but even then I try to keep a sense of humor.)
Whimsicality is a part of my personality and I’m not going to try to hide that. I am, however, limiting my mockery mostly to the peripheral parts of my campaign. I’m almost completely serious about the policies I advocate in any of these blog posts.
"Randall T. Hayes has qualified to run for the 6th Congressional District as an Other."
The title of this post is a quote from the Secretary of State's blog giving notice of my qualification as a candidate.
"Other" is the designation that Louisiana gives to candidates from political parties other than the five parties which are officially recognized in Louisiana.
My actual affiliation is with the Constitution Party, but "Randall T. Hayes has qualified to run for the 6th Congressional District as an Other" does have a ring to it.
I extend a special invitation to anyone who is an "Other" (in any sense of that word) to support my campaign.
Guns and Dope
The late Robert Anton Wilson (who is one of my personal heroes) speculated that if the Second Amendment people and the drug legalization people could ever join forces, then together they would be the majority. He made a noble and humorous effort in the last years of his life to unite those two groups in California.
I propose that we try the same thing in Louisiana. It shouldn't be too hard.
Most of the pro-drug legalization people I've known in Louisiana are also pro-gun rights, even when they don't personally want to own a gun.
The challenge will be convincing some of the NRA folks, since many of them are so anti-drug that they actually welcome the State-enforced prohibition of drugs (except, of course, when the drug is alcohol). Still, I think it's a goal worth pursuing.
For the record, I recognize that firearms and drugs can be very dangerous. I generally avoid both of them. However, I don't think it's any of the State's business if an adult wants to possess and use either of those things, so long as that use does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.
Plurality Voting
While there has not been much public discussion of the new electoral system, the little discussion that has taken place has dealt almost exclusively with the change to closed party primaries and the consequences of that change.
Small attention has been given to, and almost no analysis has been made of, the more significant change: The candidate who gets the most votes in the general election will be elected, even if he or she gets less than a majority of the votes cast.
This plurality voting system really benefits those would-be candidates who have a reliable 25-30% base of support in their Congressional districts (or statewide, for U.S. Senate races), but who could not realistically get over 50%.
While closed party primaries have long been advocated for Louisiana as a way to counteract the trend of two extreme (or, at best, niche) candidates getting into a runoff, the plurality voting system could more than offset the supposed moderating effect of party primaries.
If we consider the primary results of past elections, we can see what effect this plurality system would have had if it had been in place in those elections.
Although it is a bit dated and none of the candidates involved then is still the force that he was at the time, the 1991 gubernatorial primary results provide an interesting scenario. That was basically a four-man race. (There were a few other candidates, but Edwin Edwards at 34%, David Duke at 32%, Buddy Roemer at 27%, and Clyde Holloway at 5% got almost all the votes.) If we imagine that race as a 2008 Senate race with Edwards as the Democratic nominee and Roemer as the Republican nominee and Duke and Holloway as independents, Edwards would have won by a plurality. If, however, Holloway had stayed out of the race and his votes had gone more to Duke than to Roemer (which would have been likely, given Duke and Holloway's supporters' similarities) then Duke would have actually been elected with slightly more than 34%.
Obviously, I have assumed a lot of things in the above scenario that might not come to pass in contemporary Congressional elections, but I think I have illustrated how the new system might result in a minority of voters electing a very non-mainstream candidate.
This new system also greatly increases the chances that a black candidate could be elected from some district other than the majority-black Second. Five of Louisiana's six majority-white Congressional districts have large enough black populations that a black candidate could get a plurality if the white vote were sufficiently split among three or more (or, in some districts, two or more) other candidates. The significant black population statewide should also make the U.S. Senate races attractive to black candidates.
If the black candidate were also able to secure the Democratic nomination (which might be difficult since the party primaries will involve a runoff) then his or her chances of winning the general election would be really very good.
Conversely, a lone white candidate could win in the Second District if the black vote were sufficiently split.
The supporters of plurality voting might argue that it has worked fine in other states (which is a debatable point), but we should recognize that Louisiana is not politically like the other states.
First, Louisiana does not have the sort of strong political party culture that other states have.
Second, Louisianans have historically shown more of a willingness to vote for rogue candidates than voters in other states have.
Third, compared to other states, Louisiana has very easy ballot access laws for individual candidates.
The ease with which a person can get on the ballot in Louisiana without first building either a fortune in campaign funds or an army of campaign volunteers or endearing himself to the leaders of a political machine is a good thing, in my opinion. It helps keep the electoral process open to new ideas. Even the no-hope-of-winning candidates (a group in which I proudly include myself) can offer something of value. If nothing else, just having an array of protest-vote options allows a voter to demonstrate his dissatisfaction with the leading candidates. Let us hope that the legislature does not react to any problems which might arise over plurality voting by simply restricting ballot access.
A more open and more democratic solution would be instant runoff voting (IRV). Voters would rank the candidates, rather than just picking their first choice. Even if no candidate was the first choice of more than half of the voters casting ballots, those rankings would allow a winner to be selected by an absolute majority rather than a mere plurality. As the name implies, it would achieve the same result as a runoff, but without the expense and delay of another election. In fact, if IRV were also used in the party primaries, the whole Congressional election could be reduced to two stages, rather than the three stages likely under our new system.
Unlike the plurality system, IRV would eliminate the worry that voters and potential candidates will have over splitting the vote and throwing the election to a candidate that most voters voted against. People would be able to vote their hopes, rather than their fears.
Before we dismiss instant runoff voting on the grounds that Louisiana should not take the risks involved in being at the forefront of such innovative electoral reform, we should consider that Louisiana already uses IRV on absentee ballots sent to U.S. military personnel and to Louisiana voters residing abroad. (RS 18:1306 A. (4))
If instant runoff voting is good enough for Louisianans serving away from home in the U.S. military, why isn’t it good enough for the rest of us?
SB 18 and its Origins and Consequences
In the 2006 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature, State Sen. Cleo Fields introduced Senate Bill 18. (To see SB18's full legislative history, including how each legislator voted, go here.)
The bill's basic purpose was to change Louisiana's system for electing U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators to a closed party primary / plurality voting system. This was a change from the nonpartisan blanket primary / runoff system which Louisiana had used since 1978 for all of its elections (except for U.S. presidential nominating contests) and which is still in place for Louisiana elections for state and local offices.
A change in the way Louisianans elected their members of Congress was being considered because, under the electoral system then in use, our state's U.S. House and U.S. Senate members were sometimes not chosen until December runoffs - about a month after members in other states were elected. Critics pointed out that this late start put Louisiana's Congressman at a disadvantage. For example, some of the best committee assignments had already been made before Louisiana's Congressman were even elected.
This problem had not been adequately addressed earlier because it did not exist for most of the time that Louisiana was using the nonpartisan blanket primary / runoff system for its Congressional elections. From 1978 through 1996, Louisiana had held its Congressional primaries in September or October, with a runoff in November when needed. This meant that many elections were actually decided in September or October, so there was no need for a November runoff. In 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Foster v. Love that that schedule violated federal statutes which had been enacted in the 1870's and which set the date for Congressional elections in November. In response, Louisiana began in 1998 holding its Congressional primaries in November and its Congressional runoffs - when needed - in December, thus creating the late-arrival problem.
Against that backdrop, SB18 was passed by the legislature, signed into law by the governor, and became a part of Louisiana's election code. It became effective at the start of 2007, which means that this year's special Congressional elections are the first to use the new system.
How It Will Work
Under the new law, Louisiana's Congressional elections will be conducted in this way:
Each of Louisiana's five recognized political parties (Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Reform, Republican) will hold a first party primary in September, unless fewer than two candidates from that party qualifies to run for that Congressional seat. If only one candidate from a party qualifies to run, then that candidate becomes that party's nominee, without the need for a primary.
Only Republicans may vote in the Republican party primary. In the four other party primaries, voters who are either affiliated with the party holding the primary or not affiliated with any party or affiliated with some party other than the five recognized parties may vote. Only candidates affiliated with the party holding the primary may run in that primary.
If one candidate in the first party primary gets a majority of the votes cast in that primary, then that candidate becomes that party's nominee.
If no candidate gets a majority in a first party primary, then the top two vote-getters in that first party primary proceed to a second party primary, which is held in October. The candidate who gets a majority in the second party primary becomes that party's nominee.
The nominee for each of the five recognized parties proceeds to the general election, which is held in November. Also, any independent candidates and any candidates affiliated with some party other than the five recognized parties will proceed directly to the November general election, without being required to participate in any primaries. (All candidates, however, are required to qualify in the same qualifying period. This is significant since it means that a candidate who loses his or her party's nomination in the primaries cannot then choose to run in the general election as an independent.)
All voters, regardless of party affiliation, vote in the same general election.
The candidate who receives the most votes in the general election is elected, even if that candidate receives less than half of the votes cast in the general election.
Special Elections
Obviously, the months in which the upcoming special Congressional elections in the Sixth and the First Districts will be held differ from the months listed above for regular Congressional elections. The special elections will, however, follow the same basic three-stage process described above, with one possible exception: Under the proclamations issued by Governors Blanco (calling for the First District special election) and Jindal (calling for the Sixth District special election), if all contested party nominations are settled without the need for a second party primary, then the general election will be moved up to the date on which the second party primary would have been held.
In these special elections, the first party primaries are scheduled for March 8, the second party primaries are scheduled for April 5, and the general election is scheduled for May 3.
Campaign Store
Official Campaign Photo
About Randall T. Hayes
AGE:
35 1/2
OCCUPATION:
Guerrilla ontologist
EDUCATION:
Bachelor of Arts in Radio-Television-Film, University of Louisiana - Monroe
Juris Doctor / Bachelor of Civil Law, Louisiana State University Law Center
PARTY AFFILIATION:
Constitution
POLITICAL EXPERIENCE:
Delegate, 1995 Louisiana Republican Convention
1991 Louisiana State Senatorial candidate
RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS:
Ordained minister of both the Universal Life Church and the Church of the SubGenius
MEMBERSHIPS:
Mensa, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Cacophony Society
HOBBIES:
reading old books, blogging, culture jamming, designing novelty t-shirts, photography, freedoming
Disclaimer: Any links in this post or elsewhere on this site are provided for informational purposes only. They are not meant to imply any endorsement of my campaign by the linked site or organization, nor do they indicate any relationship between me and the linked site or organization other than the relationship explicitly stated.
Randall T. Hayes announces candidacy for U.S. Representative from the 6th District of Louisiana
I, Randall T. Hayes, am happy to announce that I will be a candidate in the special general election to fill the U.S. House seat serving Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District. The special general election is scheduled for May 3, 2008, but could be moved up to April 5, 2008, if there is no need for a special second party primary to choose the nominee of any of Louisiana's five recognized political parties. (If you think that this is an unnecessarily confusing way to run an election, I agree with you.)
In the coming days and weeks, I will be sharing my reasons for running and my thoughts about the campaign via this blog.
I will list now, though, my primary reasons for running:
1. To educate the people of Louisiana about the drastic changes which were made in how we will be conducting our U.S. House and U.S. Senate elections.
2. To explain why one of these changes - the requirement of a mere plurality, rather than an absolute majority, to win the general election - was a very bad idea.
3. To suggest alternatives to the plurality voting system.
4. To help arouse interest in what might be a very boring, though still possibly important, election.
5. To challenge the dogmatic and muddled thinking that many otherwise clear-thinking people engage in at election time, simply because they have been conditioned by a manipulative political establishment to NEVER think outside the box on political/electoral matters.
