Write-In Votes

So, this AM, in an op-ed letter, an Oak Co Republican Executive Committee member wrote, "Write-ins are just wrong."  Of course, this guy wouldn't have a vested (conflict of?) interest in this issue, would he?  The immediately situation (McCotter's petition snafu) aside, write-ins need to be discussed.

I would submit that not only is "Write-ins are just wrong," but that write-ins can help straighten out the mess we are in--in DC, in Lansing, all over.  Surely the political parties, both Dems and Reps, abhor write-ins for obvious reasons.  But let's consider what write-in votes can do.

First, a write-in is an alternative to the often rotten candidates both parties throw at voters.  Since the parties have rigged the nomination processes, voter are often left with "holding their noses" and voting for"the lesser of two evils," that is, bad candidates.  Parties have demonstrated they are much more concerned with holding power than with fixing what is becoming more and more broken in the US.  A write-in vote is a vote one of the parties doesn't get, potentially costing an election.  Write-ins give voters choices, not the same old garbage.

Second, a write-in vote is a valid way to express dissatisfaction, disgust even, with how the parties are operating government.  Many will say that a write-in vote is a "wasted vote."  I disagree with that, vehemently.  Why should I have to "hold my nose" when I vote?  More significant to this point, a write-in vote voices/expresses my dissatisfaction.  I think that if more, not fewer, voters resorted to write-ins, better things would happen.

Perhaps, then, the parties would wake up, offering better candidates in hopes of attracted the potential write-in voters.  Perhaps they would make better attempts to deal with issues, to speak plainly and honestly.

After all, if many people resorted to write-in votes, the political parties would lose out on potentially deciding votes.