At 07:46 PM 1/31/01 -0600, Julia wrote:
>Gee, and here I was thinking we had just 5 candidates on the actual ballot
>-- Browne, Buchanan, Bush, Gore, Nader; and running-mates with each of
>them.
Well, Florida had 10 choices, I believe.
>(Of course, you've listed people on the ballots for the primaries for the
>Republican and Democratic parties here, while I'm talking about a
>different ballot. Apples and pears.... I think more of the people on
>this list voted in the actual presidential election than voted in the
>primaries, but I could be wrong.)
But Julia, that's *exactly* what I mean. Any idealized electoral system
will eventually narrow the choice to two possible options. Otherwise, if
the final choice is between three options, you run the risk of getting:
1) 33% of voters strongly support A, are o.k. with B, and are strongly
opposed to C.
2) 33% of voters strongly support B, are o.k. with A, and are strongly
opposed to C.
3) 34% of voters strongly support C, are o.k. with A, and are strongly
opposed to B.
In this case, A would be the best choice, B an o.k. choice, and C the worst
choice - yet C would win!!!!!!!
That is why the primaries are so useful. Candidates for President broadly
decide if they want to run from the left or the right, and then we narrow
it down to one candidate from "the left" and one "from the right."
Really, its a pretty good system. Moreover, because of the nature of the
system, it is very dishonest for people like Yanni to say that only getting
two choices in the end means that our system does not provide much choice.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today:
to make our country more just and generous; to affirm the dignity of
our lives and every life." - George W. Bush Inaugural Address 1/20/01
