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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (50938)	10/10/2002 8:56:28 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi KLP; [OT] Re: "We're probably going to see more of this!" [Parties replacing lousy candidates at the last minute.] I hate to have to say this, but if the polls show that the voters are completely against one candidate, wouldn't it be better for the voters if that candidate could be replaced with someone that is better? The only downside I can see is that parties might be more likely to try to get unwanted candidates elected, knowing that they can always can him and replace him with someone that the voters like more at the last minute. But I don't think that that would be a winning strategy because (a) the number of times this gets done is fairly small (there are what, 468 US elections this year?), and (b) showing up late to the party is undoubtedly not as effective as simply voting the right candidate in at the primaries. If elections are really about choice, then why not let the parties be more effective at providing choices that the voters actually want? The only direct downside to the government is printing costs, and you can always send the bill to the party that wants the last minute change. -- Carl