tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3620474884501533030.post4096868748804119185..comments2023-06-05T06:30:25.429-07:00Comments on Rhetorical Wasteland: Primary QuestionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3620474884501533030.post-90075005725435669502008-08-19T16:43:00.000-07:002008-08-19T16:43:00.000-07:00Michael,On the merits, I would go with Instant Run...Michael,<BR/><BR/>On the merits, I would go with Instant Runoff Voting as well (which is what I think you are referencing).<BR/><BR/>In terms of public policy and public opinion (which are clearly not decided on the merits).... baby steps.Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685035273589091992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3620474884501533030.post-13646798304707348862008-08-19T16:30:00.000-07:002008-08-19T16:30:00.000-07:00My guess? A three-candidate election still leaves ...My guess? A three-candidate election still leaves open the possibility for a plurality instead of a majority. Someone wins with 35% of the vote to 33% and 32%, say. Now, though people often get elected with 40-45% of the vote, 35% seems mighty low. My guess is it's to prevent the necessity for another run-off or a contended election.<BR/><BR/>My question is: why not do what the Green Party has been proposing for years, where we rank candidates and the rankings affect their possibilities of winning. (I forget what this type of ballot is called, and also I don't know if the Green Party is still pushing for this.)Michael Farishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13238625481857584857noreply@blogger.com