Steve Smith wrote at 03/16/2012 10:54 AM: > But to be honest, the important question is "what *would* be a better > process/circumstance for all of this?" Who *could* foster/muster > something like this. I'd be equally (differently) scared if it were > GoogleZon doing it... like > Vote.Google.com ? Maybe someone like EFF could do something less > muddied by conventional money and politics?
Personally, I think the 2-party lock-in is ensured by winner-take-all competitions. If we could move to another voting system, we'd see more 3rd party viability and more multi-dimensional choices. That would even fix, to some extent, the money problem because more bins for the money implies more distributed money. I also think it would solve some of the vitriol problem. It would be more difficult to make ad hominem attacks if there are more people to attack. Even morons like me would be forced to discuss the issues more and the icons less ... again because there are more icons. It doesn't matter where a 3rd party or lone candidate comes from, as long as our elections are winner-take-all, there will always be only 2 viable parties. You can see this to some extent in the states who allocate their delegates by percentage, rather than maximum percentage. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
