On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> At 07:46 PM 1/31/01 -0600, Julia wrote:
>
> >(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."
I think the system would work better if *more* of the voters voted in
primaries.
I voted in a primary, mostly because most of the candidates of a
particular party would be likely to win in my district (for whatever
district the candidate would represent upon winning), and that's the best
way for me to put in my $0.02 at the more local level. Then at the time
of the actual election, I might very well vote for candidates of a
different party. So I've had my say in 2 different ways. It would be
nice if more people did this, they'd probably feel more connected to the
whole process, and there would probably be a little less bitching about
the "lesser of 2 evils" (or similar sentiment). (Just a little.)
Julia
