Nice idea, but this assumes that those in positions of power would support changes to the system so that the public.can be empowered to throw them out.  As for the amendment, first you need to get it through both houses of Congress and then, if I am not mistaken, through three-quarters of the state legislatures within a specific period of time.  Will those exercising power enthusiastically join your crusade to change the status quo and facilitate stripping themselves of their power?  Now then, what was Tony saying about electoralism?  : )   Dan

GEOFFREY PALMER wrote:

> There's been a lot of talk about people throwing away there vote. I even saw a bumper sticker that read: " if God wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates". I propose a revamping of the voting system to better reflect the opinions of all the peopleand all of the candidates. Instead of a one-person one vote, what about one person one vote for each candidate based on a 0-10 grading scale. Voting zero, for a candidate allowed you a negative vote for someone you did not want to win, and more points for those you like. That way voting for, say Nader-10, also allowed you to vote zero for say, Bush and 5 for Gore. This would be a more accurate reflection of how people actually felt about all of the candidates, not just the "lesser of two evils" without feeling like you were throwing away tour vote for fear of the "most evil" one winning. This could be easily facilitated by listing all candidates (and write-in's) on the voting card with 11 holes to punch (0-10). Amendment anyone?
> Geo-free