Direct LO2E, VA, & Margins

[Mike Ositoff]

> 

Replying at end of letter. No time to delete intervening lines.



> Mr. Ossipoff wrote ---
> 
> Millions of voters, including virtually all of the ones I've
> spoken with, say that their goal in voting isn't to vote for
> someone, it's to vote against someone.
> 
> D- Perhaps reform of ballot access laws and election methods would produce
> more candidates such that the millions of voters would find somebody to vote
> for.
> 
> What percentage of ALL the voters would find Nader, Clinton, Dole, Perot,
> Bush, Reagan, Gore, etc. etc. at any given election to be acceptable ?  If
> less than half of ALL the voters, then each should not be elected.  If more
> than half of ALL the voters, then each can be number ranked by ALL the voters.
> 
> I note again that executive officers such as U.S. Presidents should only be
> executing the laws and NOT making the laws such that many folks can be a U.S.
> President.    
> 
> Unfortunately, in what I consider to be a total perversion of the U.S.
> Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court has made U.S. Presidents elective gods
> regarding foreign interventions (i.e wars) (compounded by a monarchial
> elective god build up of the office of President since 1933 by the newsmedia
> and compounded much more by having both houses of the U.S. Congress being
> continuously elected by indirect minority rule gerrymanders). 
> 
> Most voters think they have *some* influence only in voting for U.S.
> Presidents (which creates some rabid/mindless supporters of whoever is elected
> after he/she takes office).  
> 
> Thus, the LO2E problem with partisan plurality primaries and in plurality
> general elections compounded by third party candidates (i.e. Mr. Perot's ego
> in 1992 and 1996).  
> 
> Getting p.r. (i.e. indirect majority rule) in electing the U.S. Congress and
> State legislatures is much more important than single winner reform for mere
> executive and judicial offices.

PR has met with nothing but failure in modern times in the U.S.
Better to try somethig with a chance of success. SW reform is
nothing but a better way of doing what we already do, rather than
a completely new (for here) concept of representation, something
that the voters are terribly suspiciouls about.

Mike





> 
>