Reply With Quote
Because you, that's why.
why?
Because you, that's why.
Because the average voter is a ing idiot. I bet if just this political board were voting Bob Barr might win out over McCain and possibly even Obama, but we're informed and care enough to get on the internet and look at a political message board. Your average voter, on the other hand, probably doesn't even know who or what Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party is, not to even mention Cons ution and Green. It's a shame, but yeah, I think it basically boils down to incredible idiocy on the part of the American people.
We are overestimating ourselves here.
Because both sides enjoy the perks of the power and will not give it up.
VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
www.lp.org
www.barrettforcongress.us
Because of guys like the previous poster.
why only two choices? why?
are you drunk?
I see quite a few reasons I agree with. Consider also that the elected officials are the ones that must change the election laws.
The party system is part of the problem, but I like to know who they stand with as a group. What we need in my opinion is runoff elections. I don't care if the parties do this or not, but in the general election, I want runoff elections.
Not all the people are stupid. I have said repeately I will not vote for Obama or McCain. I will most likely vote for Bob Barr. Now e have the conservatives here at times wanting me to vote for McCain to keep Obama from gaining ground on votes. This is hope most people vote. The lesser of two evils. As long as we maintain such a system, we are ed.
In a runoff election, the winner must get 50% +1 vote to win. What you do when there is no clear winner this way is drop all the candidates off who cannot get the required numbers if they took their votes, and the total votes of everyone who had less than them, cannot get the 50%+1. This will normally leave three candidates, but might leave four. I guess five or more can occur, but it's rather unlikely.
Now the runoff election can be done all at once. On the ballot, you rate the canidates in order of preference. If your first choice is eliminated, then your second, third, etc. is considered until one if found who gets the required 50%+1 or more.
Consider the 1992 election. Ross Perot received 18% if I recall the numbers. Clinton 44% and Bush 37%. Both Bush and Clinton would have over 50% with the sum of those below then, but Perot wouldn't. Now with those voting for Perot, their preference of Clinto of Bush is considered, along with the other candidates below Perot. Now there is 19% of the vote being split by prreferce.
Who would have won? I'm rather sure Bush sr. would have!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
