![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/occasionalplanet.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/Schultz-Howard.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/a>So, if Howard Schultz wants to run as an independent in 2020, I will beg to differ with other progressives and say that it\u2019s okay, but with a major caveat. That condition is that if he should reach a level of viability that he would pose an electoral threat to the Democratic nominee, he will have to withdraw. And, in fact, he has indicated that he would do that as has possible campaign manager, Steve Schmidt<\/a>, someone of enormous political acumen (particularly when he is operating as a journalist).<\/p>\nBut that\u2019s not all. Schultz could have an opportunity to educate the American people about ways to permit non-Republican and non-Democrat candidates to run for president, without posing a fatal threat to one of the two-party candidates. The key to this is opening the eyes of Americans to two structural changes in the way in which we elect or leaders:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a direct popular vote<\/strong>. According to PRRI<\/a>, by roughly a two-to-one margin, Americans say they would prefer if presidential elections were decided by the national popular vote as opposed to the Electoral College. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Americans believe that presidential elections should be decided based on the national popular vote, while about one-third (32%) believe they should be decided through the Electoral College. The entrenched politicians in each party don\u2019t like abolishing the Electoral College because they have become experts in gaming the undemocratic system that we call the Electoral College.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
The way that the system works now, if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes (270 or more), the election is thrown into the House or Representatives. This happened in 1824 and 1876 and the results were not pretty. So, the question would be, what do we do with a direct popular vote in which no candidate receives a majority.<\/p>\n
- \n
- Adopt a very viable alternate system called 1-2-3 voting<\/strong>. This is where each voter gives his or her first, second and third choice for president \/ vice-president. If a voter\u2019s first preference does not win, then the second choice of the voter is added to that candidate\u2019s tally. The same would be true for third choice, and so on. This system is frequently called ranked choice voting<\/a> (or instant run-off voting), but those terms are harder to remember than 1-2-3 voting.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Here is an animation of less than two minutes that show how 1-2-3 voting works:<\/p>\n
- Adopt a very viable alternate system called 1-2-3 voting<\/strong>. This is where each voter gives his or her first, second and third choice for president \/ vice-president. If a voter\u2019s first preference does not win, then the second choice of the voter is added to that candidate\u2019s tally. The same would be true for third choice, and so on. This system is frequently called ranked choice voting<\/a> (or instant run-off voting), but those terms are harder to remember than 1-2-3 voting.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n