Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jill who wrote (12809)	11/8/2000 9:10:23 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Jill, if you had written an election scenario like this into one of your books, your editor would have red lined it out for being improbably dramatic. Volts is going to be stunned when he finally wakes up. uf

To: Jill who wrote (12809)	11/8/2000 9:27:21 AM
From: abstract	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

In several states neither leading candidate received over 50% of the vote. I think a candidate should receive a minimum of 50% plus 1 vote before being declared the winner. If there is no winner in a given jurisdiction, there should be a run-off election between between the 2 leading candidates. Living in Chicago I have seen cases where the second best candidate won the election because the best candidate had votes sucked off by a third (or fourth) party candidate and there was no provision for a run-off. In many countries around the world where they do not have a prevailing two-party system (and instead have 3 to 10 candidates and parties in an election) - a run-off election between the two top vote getting candidates is exactly what they have once that nation embraces a democracy.