Donald wrote: >To understand Mike you must know what his agenda is, which is, he wants an >election method that will put his third party candidate on the fast track >to the winner's circle, by hook or by crook.
That's strange. Although partisan politics is not the main focus of the list, my impression is that Mike supported Nader (correct me if I'm wrong). Nader is not the type of candidate I see winning most elections held by approval voting, because I don't consider him a compromise candidate. If Mike does indeed have a nefarious fast-track motive then he's pursuing it in a stupid manner. However, Mike seems quite intelligent to me, so I have to conclude that Mike's motives are not to fast-track his favorites. However, approval voting would end the "wasted vote syndrome" and make it possible for a candidate like Nader to approach voters as a serious contender. Under those circumstances, it is possible that a person like Nader might make an eloquent case and persuade the electorate that his stances are the best. In that case the opinion of the electorate might shift and Nader would in fact be a compromise candidate. In the end, that's the goal of breaking the duopoly: Not to elect my favorite, or Mike's favorite, or Donald's favorite, or anybody else's. Rather, the goal is to let our favorites take the stage and make their case to voters whose decisions aren't compromised by the "wasted vote syndrome." Then we just have to see what the voters decide, and hope that the winner serves his country in a noble manner. Alex
