[Vision2020] Presidential Elections
Thomas Hansen
tomh@FNA.fsn.uidaho.edu
Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:02:48 -0700
I have always been a supporter of the parliamentary system. In my opinion
it more closely mirrors the feelings, attitudes, and desires of the people.
Another option I like that is available in England that will never see the
light of day in the nifty fifty (USA): When an oppossing party feels that
they possess sufficient popularity to win an election, an election is
created. There is no four year "lock-in".
Tom Hansen
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Hoffmann [mailto:escape@alt-escape.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:56 AM
To: vision
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Presidential Elections
Yet our government frequently allows not majority winners, but plurality
winners (under 50%, but over any other opponent). This is not permissible
in most modern democracies. The parliamentary system requires coalitions
in case no party would achieve 50%, and this can commonly result in
governments with 75% support from the population (i.e., 75% of the people
voted for at least one of the parties in power). Power in the government
is split according to strength at the polls and party interests. So a 49%
party would hold much more power than its 5% coalition partner. If that 5%
partner is the Green party, then that party would likely get to choose the
Secretary of the Interior or such, but not much more. This is very
appealing to voters with strong interests in specific agendas. If two
coalition partners each had 30%, power would be much more evenly
shared. Again, that adds up to 60% buy-in from the
voters. Skin-of-the-teeth majorities in parliamentary coalitions are not
frequent.
Our nation is an early experiment in democracy. While we've improved
enfranchisement, we haven't done much to improve the other aspects of the
system.
Bob
10:35 AM 7/16/2003 -0700, Thomas Hansen wrote:
>Visionaires -
>
>Mr. Nieuwsam's argument doesn't hold water (let alone the hot air that is
>intended). A majority candidate is always preferred. Last time I checked
>50.000000000000001% is larger than 49.99999999999999999999999% and reflects
>a majority. To maintain the electoral college just so we would have
>something to blame when elections go "wrong" is beyond stupidity.
>
>Mr. Niewsma stated:
>
>"And Mr. Hansen, I think you missed Pastor Wilson's point. Two opposite
>directions (i.e. not facing same way) is not the same thing as two
different
>choices. Both the Dems and the Reps are socialists. Just one is more open
>about it."
>
>As it should be. The current two-party system is the result of over 200
>years of political evolution within the United States. One way to develope
>a viable third party is to create one that a large percentage of the people
>support not only with ballots but with money.
>
>For your information, independent candidates (candidates not affiliated
with
>any political party) have been elected as state governors, US
>Representatives, and US Senators.
>
>Tom Hansen
>Moscow, Idaho
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joshua Nieuwsma [mailto:joshuahendrik@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:19 AM
>To: vision
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential Elections
>
>
>some thoughts:
>Having a purely majority vote election would split the country. It's
already
>becoming divided, but in my opinion choosing a leader based solely upon
>50.0001% of the votes is crazy. At least right now, with the electoral
>college, we have a system to blame when someone gets voted in with less
than
>the majority of the citizens votes. An entity is alot less personal than
the
>guy down the street who we have enmity against, if it is a hotly contested
>election, because he voted for the other guy that got in instead of our
>49.9999% guy. Simple majority is a great way to get people frustrated,
>upset, and eventually riotous. (Incidentally, it is also a dangerous basis
>for legislation.) The southern states were quite unhappy when Lincoln won
>the presidency without even a simple majority. He got something like 37%.
>But the electoral college put him in power.
>And besides, no one likes runoffs. Isn't it best to avoid them? We don't
>live in anything remotely like an ideal state. Look at how hard it is for
>California to decide to replace their governor. How much worse to hold a
>second presidential election. It's just not feasible, in my opinion.
>And Mr. Hansen, I think you missed Pastor Wilson's point. Two opposite
>directions (i.e. not facing same way) is not the same thing as two
different
>choices. Both the Dems and the Reps are socialists. Just one is more open
>about it.
>
>sincerely,
>
>Joshua Nieuwsma
>
>thansen@moscow.com wrote:
>Douglas Wilson stated:
>
>"The last presidential election where Americans had a real choice to go in
>one
>of two opposite directions occurred a long time before I was born."
>
>Please elaborate. Every federal presidential election in which I have
>participated since I was of voting age (and that has been several days ago)
>has
>clearly consisted of at least two choices (and in some cases three or
more).
>
>In my opinion for presidential election results to truly reflect the
>peoples'
>choice is to eliminate the electoral college and base the outcome stricly
on
>
>popular vote. In the event that a candidate does not attract the majority
>vote
>(defined as 50% plus one), there should be a runoff between the top two
>candidates. It is clearly that simple.
>
>Any other thoughts?
>
>Tom Hansen
>Moscow,
>Idaho
>
>---------------------------------------------
>This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>http://www.fsr.net/
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>http://www.fsr.net
>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>
>Do you Yahoo!?
>SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
>_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Bob Hoffmann
820 S. Logan St.
Moscow, ID 83843
Tel: 208 883-0642
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ