--- wheres_the_log <yahoo_at_enderton.org> wrote:
> seems like one of the big lessons of
> the recent circus is, we should have
> Instant Runoff Voting, statewide,
> now. what do you guys think?
Without a doubt, such a change would
be a step in the right direction. As
you might guess, I suggest taking more
than one step....
Instant Runoff Voting adds another level
to the voting scheme, solving a common
"vote-for-one" flaw. But it doesn't address
the underlying problem, which is that one
party is looking to be the "winner" and
therefore the other must be the "loser".
This inevitably leads to the Hatfields-McCoys
situation that we find ourselves in today.
The best solution that I've seen are the
vote-for-many schemes. Either "vote for
as many of the candidates as you'd find
acceptable" [credit to AEM] or the 5-level
"How do you find this candidate -- Excellent,
good, fair, poor, unacceptable?" The latter
is a very popular system used to measure
all sorts of things.
What I like about the last system is that
not only does it change these flaws in the
voting, but it would change the way that
the candidates campaign. No longer would
it be of any value to smear your opponent.
Qualities such as ability to forge a
consensus, diplomacy and cooperation would
now be revealed and key to a candidate's
success. No longer would our votes hinge
on hot-button topics or old wounds. Rather,
actual leadership skills would be demanded.
> > Three years of Governor Gangbang.
> ... i honestly wasn't sure which candidate
> he was talking about (Mary Carey or Ahnold).
MC would have been "Governess".
[By the way, there was an interesting LA Times
article about gender issues and sex scandals,
specifically Clinton and Schwarzenegger.
Unfortunately, Miss Carey was not included.]
Bark!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Received on 2003-10-10 22:54:02