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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3523)	3/19/2002 5:54:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Interesting idea, but I don't think that we will see it on a national level, or widespread use of it at the state level. The current incumbents know that they have a good chance to get reelected and would rather not experiment with anything that might change that. As for my opinion of it, I haven't given it a lot of thought yet so I'm unsure where I come down on this idea. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (3523)	3/20/2002 5:53:49 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I think this sounds like the 'Single Transferable Vote' system. The Liberal party here (3rd party, soft-left, greenish, libertarian) has been campaigning for it for ~40 years... it stands to gain probably the most benefit. It's more representative. It's more likely to produce a middle-of-the-road, compromise-style government, more acceptable to more - but less likely to match the largest number of first choices (maximin rather than minimax). This might not be such a problem for a Presidential election, however, as against a parliamentary one, since you still only have one winner rather than a probable coalition. It's certainly not my favourite PR.