"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
[various snippages]
> 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!!!!!!!
Well if you gave everyone a "for" vote and an "against" vote then A
would receive 33%, B would receive -1% and C would receive -32%. I don't
see why this couldn't work in the real election... I dunno I don't like
politics anyways.
> 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.
So when other people say it it's not dishonest? Seriously though, how
can you honestly claim that choosing the lesser of two evils is anything
other then "not much choice" to paraphrase your paraphrase of what I
said.
--
I cannot count them in a box I cannot count them with a fox
I cannot count them by computer I will not with a Roto-Rooter
I cannot count them card-by-card I will not 'cause it's way too hard
I cannot count them on my fingers I will not while suspicion lingers.
I'll leave the country in a jam I can't count ballots, Sam-I-Am.
