Good Afternoon, Don
re: "[assuming a Condorcet voting system]. It is true that more
extreme parties would increase in numbers and first round
votes. Why because they can always have a second choice,
the L or C candidates, or the M the moderate/non-partisan
as their third choice which would win most of the elections.
The non-major parties would increase in numbers (stronger
in numbers yes, but even less likely to be elected) and at
the expense of the two major parties but still the moderate
(non-partisan) would have a greater chance of winning.
Oh, Oh! You've broached a subject beyond my competence. It's true I've
followed this site for quite a few years, but I've never made any
attempt to follow the intricacies of the various party-based electoral
methods discussed, because (in my opinion) they all give us more of the
poison that's killing us.
re: "Generally when you register you must decide to be partisan
or non-partisan (although in some states you don't have to
choose). Most people (standard definition) would use this
definition of non-partisan."
Thank you. That's a good explanation of the standard definition. From
my perspective, the standard definition only acknowledges the existence
of the portion of the electorate that votes, which, over the six most
recent elections, has averaged 43.3% of the voting age population.
Presumably, by this definition, the other 56.7% have no right to
influence our government. I'd like to conceive an electoral method that
gives every member of the voting age population the ability to influence
the electoral process to the full extent of their desire and ability.
re: "(Wikipedia) "Democracy is a political system based upon the
concept of 'rule by the people who have the right to hold
some form of political power'."
That's an interesting definition, but it fails to identify which people
"have the right to hold some form of political power". Personally, I
prefer Lincoln's definition, "Government of the people, by the people,
for the people", although I admit to assuming he meant 'all the people',
not just the subsets represented by parties.
re: "... I agree with you that it would be a much better
democracy if more people voted."
I will, for now, avoid commenting on the term 'vote' because that's a
topic worthy of in-depth examination. However, would you agree that
more people would participate in the political process if their
participation were meaningful?
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
