At 07:59 AM 7/17/01 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
>For example, how can feedback about the presidential election be trusted
>when the political parties and television networks agree to offer just two
>choices, despite the growth of third parties?
This is ridiculous in so many ways, I hardly know where to start.
First off, how can you say that third parties are growing, when their share
of the vote has decreased in each of the past two election cycles. The
Reform and Libertarian Parties both fall far short of their peaks, with
only the Greens improving.
Secondly, why did the media bail on the "two-choice" conspiracy in 1992 and
1996? Hmmmmmmmmm???????
The American people could easily have chosen Bradley, Gore, McCain, Bush,
or Forbes to be President - along with any other of the hundreds of minor
candidates.
Now, I personally think that a system of Aussie (single transferable vote)
- style voting would be an improvement for our primaries. In the end,
however, I seriously doubt that it would have changed the eventual
nominations of Bush and Gore in this cycle, nor would it have changed the
final result.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
