--- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh yeah! Getting less than 1% of the vote is NOT evidence that she > was considered a joke. Tell that to the NLP! > > Arianna came in 5th place with 0.6% of the popular vote. > > I suppose you're right, though, because Arianna got more votes than > the 6th place finisher, the very serious and non-joke candidate > Larry Flynt who got 0.3% of the vote. > > I suppose you could say with a straight face that getting 0.6% of > the popular vote is twice as much as Flynt got with 0.3%...in fact, > you could say with complete accurately say that she got 100% MORE > votes than Flynt... > > And Arianna did get 150% more votes than the 7th place finisher by > the name of Gary Coleman who got 0.2% of the vote. > > Yeah, you're right, Judy, Arianna was really taken seriously by the > voters of California! >
Those actually living in California, probably remember well that Huffington dropped out of the race far in advance of the the election. At the time, she was at 2%. Not a huge mandate by any means, but given over 50 candidates, it put her in the top four or so at the time I believe: Arnold, Bustamonte, Mclintock (sp) and then Huffington is how the polls went I think (at the time she dropped out). The problem in this election, as well as most US elections, is people don't want to waste their vote on the candidate they favor, if they are not in the top 2. Its the classic third party candidtate problem, but with 50 candidates, the problem was amplfied in this special CA election. Thats one reason I strongly favor iterative voting systems where by one votes for a ranking of candidates, first choice, second choice etc. Then votes are counted in rounds, with the least vote holder in each round being dropped. Voters for that candidates are automantically deferred to their next choice. Such a system allows voters to support third and multi-party candidates and give them a good, though not winnning, share of the votes, without wasting their final votes for the top two "electable" candidates. The losing but "did well" candidates are then positioned much better for fund raising and voter support in future elections. Over time, strong candidates not supported by party machines can rise to the top based on apptitude, not raw political and special interest power. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
