Bill Potts wrote in USMA 9272:
>Scott Clauss wrote:
>> I suspect this is why other countries have run off elections.
>
>Which is really the only fair way to deal with a mere plurality. That way,
>there is no such thing as a spoiler.
>
>If run-offs were the normal practice here, Nader could have got his 5%
>without affecting the outcome for the other two.
I might add that the same result would be obtained in one election using
the Australian system of single transferable vote, in which the voter marks
his preferences by 1, 2, 3, etc. It was introduced in Queensland in the
19th century and is now used in all electios throughout Australia to the
lower houses of parliament.
