Quote:
Originally Posted by jay santos
Isn't this pretty simple math? If a third party candidate ever gets votes c such that c > a - b (votes for candidates a and b), it's very possible that a two man election could have provided different outcome.
It's happened in the past and it will happen in the future. It's a bad practice.
|
I guess I'm saying I don't see that as a problem. The fewer the candidates, the more voters have to vote for the lesser of evils. Just because a two candidate election may deliver a different result doesn't mean more people got someone who represents them better.
The winner of an election doesn't have to be the majority choice. As long as everyone has the same rules the winner could be the one who gets the most votes. This is a republic and not a true democracy. That's why we have an electoral college rather than just going with the popular vote. The electoral college forces a situation where the winner gets the majority of the votes that count. If the electors can't decide, then our elected representatives decide it. I have no problem with that, and I think more voices rather than fewer would actually lead to a better result than what we have now which is two major candidates making themselves look as similar as possible to get that voter in the middle. What was up with McCain's new bailout proposal last night? I"m seeing less and less difference between the dems and the GOP every day. If congress had to form different coalitions to get bills passed every day, they would either pass fewer laws, which would be good in my book, or they would have to listen to more viewpoints and of necessity they'd have to represent more than just two views on everything.