[EM] Fair coverage

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Russ says:

I still seem to hear a lot of
moaning by Libertarians and Greens about being ignored by the media and
being shut out of the debates -- as if the problem would go away if the
media started giving them equal coverage with the major parties. I think
that indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the real problem
they face.

I comment:

Actually, fair media coverage would do much toward eliminating the problem 
that Plurality causes. If the Libertarians and Greens say that fair coverage 
would give them a fair chance, there's much to what they say, though a 
better voting system would be good too.

Never mind equal coverage. Suppose that parties, candidates, &/or 
organizations, etc. were in some way given their fair share of media time. 
Media time in proportion to some measure of public support. That could be 
signatures on petitions, etc.

Obvioiusly I've sketched out a general type of system, rather than an exact 
proposal.

What would happen? Immediately, when the Greens or Nader-ists began getting 
their share, their petition-signatures percentage would improve. That would 
give them a bigger media share, which would increase their petition 
percentage, and so on... Until they reach their rightful equilibrium 
percentage of media time.

Plurality does an excellent job of concealing what people want. Opponents of 
campaign reform should like Plurality. Without Plurality, their monetary 
free-speech would lose its power.

By the way, why would someone we know want a better voting system, when the 
presidential rank polls show his favorite as Condorcet loser, and Nader as 
Condorcet winner?

But, even with Plurality, the kind of fair coverage that I describe above 
would un-conceal what people want, and give people a better chance to hear 
about what other people want...and not just from the corporate-owned media 
apparatus that defines what is "mainstream", and "viable", and where the 
"middle" is (It's always between the Republican and the Democrat :-) ), and 
tells us what the (indistinguishable) "two choices" are. Actually the words 
"two" and "choices" should both be in quotes separately, because effectively 
they're one alternative, not two, and they don't represent any meaningful 
choice between them.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/