At 07:52 PM 12/3/00 -0500, Yanni wrote:
>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.
That won't work for four-candidate elections.
>> 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.
Well, the system produced a near "ideal" candidate for me this time around,
so that obviously does not hold for all voters.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"The point of living in a Republic after all, is that we do not live by
majority rule. We live by laws and a variety of isntitutions designed
to check each other." -Andrew Sullivan 01/29/01
