Senate Campain Kicks Off

I'm pleased to announce my candidacy for US Senate here in New Hampshire. I started with an email to the election board of New Hampshire. Here is the text of that email.

----

Elections@sos.state.nh.us

I noticed something wrong with the November sample ballot I downloaded from the Town of Merrimack web site (I am a resident of Merrimack). Here is the URL

http://www.merrimacknh.gov/sites/merrimacknh.gov/files/2008%20November%20_Ballot_Sample.pdf

Printed all over the ballot are the words "Vote for not more then 1".

Why should voting for one candidate disqualify a person from voting for another candidate? It's perfectly obvious what the intention of the voter is: they are approving of each candidate selected. It's perfectly obvious how to count such a ballot; one vote for X candidate and one vote for Y candidate. There is no way this would unfairly bias the count as you still can't vote for one candidate more then once.

I am going to select more then one candidate on my ballot and I am telling everyone I meet to do the same. I've even decided to run for US Senate as a write in candidate in order to make this issue more public.

How do you intend to count such ballots?

This is not a trivial matter. In every country that votes as we do has (with two exceptions) a two party system. There is nothing sacred about the two party system. While most people have a preference between the top two candidates, there is higher disapproval of the top two presidential candidates then I've ever seen. Your system of voting leads people to make strategic votes for one of the top two candidates instead of voting for the candidate who best represents them if that candidate be from a third party. Allowing a voter to only select one candidate from the lot unfairly benefits the Republican and Democratic party candidates. Allowing a voter to vote for all candidates who they approve of rectifies this problem.

I intend to get these votes counted if I have to get the court to decide the matter. The court said back in 2000 that if you can ascertain the will of the voter then the vote must be counted.

Very Truly Yours,
Michael Lidman