Election 08 (Make your prediction)

Correct. Contrast this with primary voting, with numbers of good candidates, but often not picking the best of the bunch because you only have one vote. There have been mathematical studies. Two candidates that would get 60% of the vote if the other did not run, both lose to the 40% candidate when they split the votes.This makes three or more candidates non-viable. This is also why third party candidates that get some support are just spoilers:Ross Perot took votes away from Bush 1st (thank you)
Ralph Nader took votes away from Gore (and gave us Bush 2nd)

quote:

---

In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote - approximately 19,741,065 votes (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Perot managed to finish second in two states: In Maine, Perot received 30.44% of the vote to Bush's 30.39% (Clinton won Maine with 38.77%); In Utah, Perot received 27.34% of the vote to Clinton's 24.65% (Bush won Utah with 43.36%).

---

quote:

---

Nader's votes in New Hampshire and Florida vastly exceeded the difference in votes between Gore and Bush, as did the votes of all alternative candidates.[32] Exit polls showed the state staying close, and within the margin of error without Nader[33] as national exit polls showed Nader's supporters choose Gore over Bush by a large margin[34] well outside the margin of error. Winning either state would have given Gore the presidency, ...

---

A third party must survive to transition from minor play to vote divider, to vote winner.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Perhaps he got tired of the lampooning and people not paying attention to what he had to say. Independents that don't need band wagons. Both parties in the end - it reinforced the two party system.Personally I would have preferred Perot over Bush I, and if we could have had a better voting system I think he would have come in second.As long as there are more than two candidates a single vote does not pick the one most acceptable to all people. Look at the zoo that ran for gov of california in their "special" election.If there are more than two candidates, give everyone two votes to use on any two DIFFERENT candidates.Again, this does not change the constitution -- the votes are still counted in the electoral college. This allows third parties to have a voice.In 2000 if we had this system I think it would have been Gore, Nader, Bush II.I also think the electoral college should be proportional, not winner take all. Then we wouldn't have had the media circus of is FL one way or the other, nor any reason to run a recount when it is close.I also think that each state should NOT release their results until AT the electoral college. This would give them time to run a second election if the first one is botched by bad equipment, or should be delayed due to natural disasters etc. Instead of the election night media circus we could actually watch the electoral college. He had no common liking for Bush I, and no affiliation with religious fanatic forum. Burdening them would not bother him.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : added.Edited by RAZD, : clarity

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

One simple (pragmatic) reason: it would not require an amendment to the constitution.A second (more practical) reason: it gives you a reason to hold actual vote tallies until they meet, and this allows all people to vote unbiased by what the votes in the rest of the country are doing, plus the ability of states to run second elections if the first is invalid or to have the election on different days if there is bad weather etc, or to even spread out the voting over a whole week.A third (ethical) reason: making it proportional makes the votes in the small states just as important as the votes in the big states, withholding the actual count until the electoral college makes the votes in Hawaii and Alaska as important as the votes in Lubec Maine.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarity

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Technically yes, practically no. For the same campaign effort in a large state to change it over to your party results in more bang for the buck. To break that pattern you have to change the large states to proportional voting. Yes, you and I could handle this, as could most people with a high school education. It is where I was last election on how to improve things (I can dig up those old threads if need be).The problem is public inertia resisting change, and the parties would be against it and would be citing how much more complicated it is to get the final results (see IEEE voting etc).This would just be a much simpler way to vote and to count the vote, and thus is much more practical in terms of getting the general public to go along with it.Another possibility would be to have a series of rounds where you vote the worst candidates off the island, but I think this would be better as a model for primaries than general elections, due to complications with the constitutional provisions.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •