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.

Technology Stocks : JDS Uniphase (JDSU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alcona who wrote (14258)	11/16/2000 12:21:08 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Respond to of 24042

In lots of jurisdictions around the world if no candidate gets 50% plus one vote, then the top two have a runoff 2 weeks later....that would be both fair and fun...<GGG> I'd like to see this in general because it would empower third parties. No longer could you say that voting for a third party would be a vote for "the other guy" since no one could win outright unless the third party voters wouldn't make a difference. In the case of President, though, it would have to be on a state-by-state basis and not on an overall popular vote basis. It would also require a Constitutional amendment because the vote which actually chooses the Electors would not be at "the Time" authorized by Congress. Article II, Section 1 says in part: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, ... ... The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.