First Choice Criterion

[john w sarette]

On Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:36:59 -0800 (PST) Mike Ositoff <ntk at netcom.com>
writes 
>> Beth Cornell wrote:
>> I believe that one should vote for the candidate that has the best 
>ideals for ones town,state,country.   Beth Cornell
>> >
>> 
>>     As opposed to those of us who think we should vote for the 
>candidate that has the worst ideals?
>Excuse me, but "not best" isn't the same as "worst". For
>instance, if you believe that Nader has the best ideals in
>'92, but you instead voted for some sleaze who seemed more
>winnable, more able to beat someone even worse, then 
>you didn't vote for the candidate with best ideals,>

This is my first message to the list so I may be repeating something
already discussed and solved.  Forgive me if I do so.
It seems to me that when we vote we are sending information to the
political system, if we choose to vote for the 'winner' vs voting for the
candidate we perceive of as 'best'  we tell the system we want winners so
we get dissemblers.
In any sort of ranking, vote for multiple candidates sort of electoral
process, I would argue that the problem of manipulation fails on two
grounds:  The first is behavioral, to manipulate takes sophistication and
dedication, I do not believe that the party activities are a sufficient
part of the electorate to be able to do that.  The second is procedural,
simply require that all candidates be ranked in order for the vote for
that office to count.  This only leaves reversal and reason one mitigates
strongly against it.

Here in Minnesota you can see what "voting for the best" resulted in and
I think its a step forward

John

j2saret at usa.net

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]