John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> The United States operates on a "winner-take-all" system of
> government.
> One person is elected President, and that person gets to
> execute the Office
> of the President for four years. There is no co-Presidency,
> no rotating
> Presidency, no sharing of power.
According to my wife, at one point in US history the winner of the
Presidental election took the presidency; the runner up was given the
Vice Presidency.
Interesting possibilities for compromise in the current situation, no?
Okay, okay, there's zero chance of that - but similarly concocted
Bush/McCain ticket might have won more votes.
> Thus, in every vote there will be a winner and a loser. To
> listen to some
> of you talk, anybody who votes for a loser has "wasted their vote."
> Likewise, anybody who casts their vote for the victor when
> the margin of
> victory is >1 has cast a "meaningless vote."
Sports example: in a hockey game, you're up by 1 point in the final 30
seconds of the game and have posession of the puck. Do you attempt to
score again, or do you hoard the puck and run out the clock?
Running out the clock is the best strategy; it's an inevitable
consequence of following the rules, which say nothing about the ideals
of the game, but that to win you should score and keep your opponent
from scoring. As usual, something that makes perfect sense in a sports
analogy is usually lost on the American public when it comes to
politics.
Joshua
