[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Dave Ketchum
davek at clarityconnect.com
Sun Jul 15 10:28:30 PDT 2012
On Jul 13, 2012, at 11:30 AM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> Good Morning, Dave
>
> re: "Clones are a problem for Plurality, and primaries were
> invented to dispose of clones within a party"
>
> I'm not sure what clones are, but imagine they are multiple
> candidates who seek the same office.
>
Yes, and looking alike they must share the voters who agree - a
disaster that is suppressible within a party via primaries in
Plurality. But primaries cannot suppress clones from different
parties - one big reason for going to a better voting method.
>
> re: "Could say that if they have no voice they have no need of
> anyone to speak to."
>
> Who has the right to make that judgment? We can't say that until
> those without a voice have a practical way to express themselves on
> political issues.
I am not making a judgement. Those not ready to speak have no need
for "a practical way to express themselves".
>
>
> re: "If there is an idea worth speaking about and no party is
> interested, its backers could form a party."
>
> Forming a party is the height of futility, as I'm sure you're
> aware. As long as the major parties write the rules for our
> electoral process, we will continue to have a closed system.
Slavery was worth speaking about in the early US - and sufficient for
speaking about. So the Republican party was born. Soon they became a
major party able to elect presidents, in a two-party system where the
Whigs were soon forgotten.
Such as the Greens and Libertarians claim to have worthy ideas.
>
>
> Fred
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list