Don't tell Cheryl Scott her vote didn't count.

The Volcano mother and Dennis Kucinich supporter mailed in her ballot weeks before this month's primaries, which occurred in 24 states across the country, including California. But even though she voted for a candidate who was no longer in the race, Scott, a registered nurse, has no regrets.

"Even if I didn't do an absentee ballot and even though he has withdrawn from the race, I would still (have voted) for him," she said. "I just feel very strongly about Dennis."

Hey, any candidate you're on a first-name basis with must have registered strongly.

Supporting a candidate with little chance of winning is one thing, but voting for someone who's not even running? Isn't that like voting for Ralph Nader?

Coming from someone who supported Nader in 2000, even I'll admit it seems an odd, self-defeating stance at first, but it's also boldly refreshing. Hear me out.

American elections aren't perfect. The apportionment of delegates is confusing and inconsistent depending on what state you're in; the possibility of super delegates deciding close primary races is practically undemocratic; and the electoral college system opens up the possibility where the presidential candidate with the most votes isn't necessarily the one who gets elected. Which is a ridiculous prospect until you realize that relying solely on the popular vote could leave underpopulated states out in the political cold.

I'm not sure what to do about the latter, but there are many small tweaks that could drastically improve an already superior electoral system. California and other states should adopt a modified-modified open primary system, in which decline-to-state voters are permitted to choose whatever political party's ballot they want, but leave Democrats to Democrats and Republicans to Republicans. Twenty-eight other states do exactly that.

With the number of Independent voters on the rise, this may be where our electoral system will ultimately head. As I explained to a letter writer recently, one of the chief reasons I don't belong to a party is because I enjoy the freedom of evaluating candidates based on their statements, records and various other attributes more relevant than what party they belong to. If I were a Democrat and saw a Republican candidate I liked, I would be prevented from supporting him or her during the primaries, which seems arbitrary to me.

Another new frontier is the propensity toward voting absentee, a trend Amador County is spearheading. In 2006, roughly 50 percent of the county mailed in their ballots. This year, that number may climb higher, depending on what today's certified election results show.

"It has been increasing," says George Allen, elections officer. "We're encouraging it, too."

And despite the potential for voting for someone who's no longer running, Scott is a big supporter of the paper trail left by voting absentee as well. "I'm very opposed to the electronic method because of the corruption that occurred with the last election," she said.

Personally, there's no substitute for standing in line with your fellow citizens at the polling place and then cramming yourself into a narrow booth to make your selections.

Voters should also have the ability to prioritize their selections for president, both in the primaries and general elections, which would give deserving third party candidates as well as "fringe" Democrats like Kucinich and "outsider" Republicans like Ron Paul more accurate representation from their supporters.

It's unfortunate that the public is scared off from supporting the candidates they actually want in office. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney took that path by telling supporters of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee they were really voting for Arizona Sen. John McCain. In 2000, Nader supporters were vilified for costing former Vice President Al Gore the election. But it was Gore's own wooden campaign - and some pernicious Supreme Court rulings - that kept him from the presidency.

The media's complicit relegation of "small market" candidates to the outskirts also does the political system no favors either. But rationalizing your vote only leads to more of the same. As I told whiny Democrats upset about my vote for Nader, the current system won't ever change unless you have people willing to "sacrifice" their votes.

The only votes that are truly sacrificed are the ones that don't get counted. And the ones that don't get made. This year, thankfully, there seems to be less of each occurring.