lurger, I can fully understand and appreciate your point of view.
Well lurger - err...make lurqer<g> - differs from some occasional poster on this board. Since I post a fair number of news stories on this board, it would be a mistake to think I agree with all of them. Some are of general interest; some are of my particular (and somewhat warped) interest. My own political views are both sufficiently left and libertarian, to find little exposure in most popular media. Hence, you will find I tend to "compensate". But, unless I comment otherwise, it would be erroneous to assume that simply because I've posted an article, that I either totally or even largely agree with it. It is true that I bemoan the current system that promotes the continuation of a corrupt duoply.
Since I have little respect for those that complain, but offer no alternatives consider this. With the advent of electronic voting (and that itself presents perils, but that's another post), there is no reason to stick with a simplistic winner-take-all system. Instead, from the candidates, pick up to five (in order of priority), or as few as one. Total the vote with everyone's first choice. If a candidate has a majority of the votes, that candidate wins. Otherwise, eliminate the candidate with the fewest votes. Those that voted for the eliminated candidate, and only for that candidate, are no longer part of the process. If they had a second choice, that choice is now treated like a first choice. Continue this process, until some candidate has a majority. However, and this is a big However, all ballots must include "none of the above". If "none of the above" wins a majority, the election must be reheld.
Just a thought.
lurqer |
