--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 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. > > > > Well, I am in complete agreement with you. > > > > The system you describe above is one that is the best possible > > democratic voting system...the only thing I would add to what you > > say above is that the voter should also be given the opportunity to > > NOT vote for second, third or fourth choices if he doesn't like them > > and to only vote for one (or more) candidates that he likes. > > > Yes. And in addition to this, if we were able to REALLY reform > campaign finance, end gerrymandering (such as have a bipartisan panel > of retired judges do it), abolish the electoral college, and in a > democratically balanced fachion allocate congressional committee and > sub-scommittee assignments -- doing away with the current > "patronage'/favor system, we might actually begin to have a democracy > in the US. as demonstrated by more than 10% of congressional races > being competitive, and voters actually turning out to vote since thier > vote now counts for something.
I would agree with all your additional points except the one on campaign financing which, I assume, is that you want to have MORE rules restricting campain financing. I am for complete laissez-faire in this area. I think corporations and individuals should be free to give unlimited amounts to the candidates of their choices...as long as there is immediate publicly available declarations of that support. If the voters are stupid enough to vote for candidates that are "bought off", then they get the government that they deserve. Indeed, there is much evidence to suggest that disproportionate spending for one side does NOT sway voters. I think of the nation-wide constitutional referendum asked of Canadian voters in 1992 in which the "yes" side outspent the "no" side by a 10 to 1 margin, had the support of every provincial government and the federal parliament (and most of the official opposition groups) a vast majority of all Canada's major newspaper and yet the "yes" side was soundly defeated. 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/
