The ‘Hot or Not’ Solution

 
Discuss
Member Comments
  • Posted By: UniqueContent @ 02/15/2008 2:26:28 PM

    Comment: Indeed, we may not get the most popular candidate at times. However, any time that we have an orderly change of government from one president (or congress for that matter) to another, we are all winners.

    Best wishes,
    Ron

    ==========
    http://endlessfreeplr.com

  • Posted By: John Luma @ 12/27/2007 1:57:47 PM

    Comment: Yes, when three candidates run for the same office, those whose policies and promises are closest do split their "common" vote -- and the second-place candidate wins. This is what the Dems did in 2000 and in 2004 between Gore and Nadar and Kerry and Nadar -- and Bush Jr. became President. Not only do third party candidates never win, they distort and destroy the will of the people. So while it's great to have more people register as Independents, it's worse to present them with more than two candidates.

  • Posted By: brokenladder @ 12/20/2007 4:41:10 PM

    Comment: dewcooper: It is indeed the voting system which produces the two-party system. You need to learn about Duverger's law. Most countries with a runoff system (not "instant" runoff) have escaped duopoly, for example. All the other hurdles like ballot access are minor compared to the flaws with the voting method. If we had a respectable voting method, there's no reason third party candidates or independents couldn't have every chance at winning. Every single person who supported them could vote for them - safely. Then they could still show support for second favorites, so as to minimize the chance of getting the "greater evil".

Sponsored by
 
 
 
The Peek
 
 
SPORTS

Luxury stadiums are on the rise. A top seat can cost $150,000. Beer costs extra.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
VIEWPOINT

The vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country. So who are the 10 percent who think everything is A-OK?

Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu