In the 1880s, because of the cost of printing ballots, it was decided that only some candidates would be listed on voting ballots. This gives a candidate who is listed on a ballot a very distinct and unfair advantage over a candidate who is not listed on the ballot. Defenders of Closed Ballot Access purport if we let any candidates on the ballot, that it would become too confusing for people to vote. However, during the 2003 California gubernational election of over 135 candidates, newspapers reported voters had no trouble finding the candidate they wished to vote for.

By opening ballot access, we can help split up the two-party monopoly that has infested every voting booth for the past century.

According to usccr.gov, over 2 million Floridian votes were thrown away in the 2000 presidential election. As a result, George W. Bush won the election. Almost all of those votes were from predominantly African American districts.

In 2004, Ohio residents found themselves in the middle of a large debate between Republicans and Democrats over voter registration techniques. In the days approaching the presidential election, voters received phone calls misinforming them of what day they should vote and where to show up to vote. Many voters that had registered to vote showed up to the polls only to find themselves being turned away because the registration form they filled out and turned in never got processed. George W. Bush won this election as well.

To compound these problems, with the introduction of privately owned, programmed, manufactured, and serviced Diebold voting machines voter fraud is on the rise. Could it be because they are ridiculously vulnerable to tampering?

By turning Election Day into a federal holiday so the working class can get the time off to vote; accepting same-day voter registration with valid identification; not disenfranchising anyone - especially minorities and the 3.2 million disabled citizens who have trouble finding transportation; making voting easier on our troops abroad; making "early voting" universal; re-enfranchising those who have served their time in prison; and converting to verifiable electronic voting, we restore the integrity to and faith in the voting process itself.

Political debate facilitators (usually media pundits) give ample speaking time to candidates from the two biggest parties, and hardly any to the smaller parties. We understand they are more popular and therefore more people are interested in hearing what they have to say, but this leads to an atmosphere where good ideas and fact-based assertions are cast aside for arrogance and theatrics.

The facilitator pretends to give these parties fair treatment by cycling one or two lesser-known candidates into each round of questions they ask the two party candidates. As a result, the big parties get a lot of face-time with the public, while the smaller parties are seen as a silly nuisance.

By fact-checking assertions as they're made; extending debate time limits; and most importantly, giving every candidate equal speaking time, we assure that Americans hear multiple points of view; can identify fact from fiction; and are educated before they vote.

Imagine you are in elementary school and your teacher says, "Okay class. Today we're going to pick the school's favorite color! It will be on every wall, every locker, every paper we send home, and in your face 24/7!"

You get excited about the possibilty of your favorite color being everywhere. You're not worrying about a color you hate being picked because it's obvious that the majority of your class dislike that color.

You turn in your vote. 30% voted for blue, 30% voted for green, and 40% voted for red. 40% just trumped 60%.

This is how our current voting system operates and it leaves more than half of our country perpetually unsatisfied. Not only that, but it forces a great deal of voters to pick the lesser of two evils instead of the candidate that most represents their views.

Luckily, some U.S. cities (St. Paul, Minneapolis) have already implemented more effective voting methods with little-to-no confusion, and much more satisfied citizens.

By converting our system of voting to almost anything other than the first-past the-post system, we're inviting people the opportunity to pick candidates that more closely represent their beliefs and opinions.

Popular options include: The Condorcet Method, Range Voting, Instant Runoff Voting, Ranked Voting, etc.