[EM] Cartoon about single-mark ballots

[VoteFair]

With our current use of single-mark ballots, candidates (of any party) 
who would be good problem-solving leaders (instead of special-interest 
puppets) are rare.

If single-mark ballots were banned (which includes not using the 
closed-list PR methods that dominate in Europe), there would be many 
more very qualified candidates.  (The better the counting method, the 
better the candidates.)

In the future, if there is still a U.S. presidential general election, 
there are likely to be five or six or seven good choices on the ballot. 
  Better ballots (and better counting methods) will enable the best 
candidate to be chosen.  And better ballots will enable 
far-better-motivated people to get into Congress, which then makes some 
of those congressmen/congresswomen eligible to run for president.

The fact that there are so few better candidates (Ralph Nader, John 
Anderson, John Edwards before his infidelity), and the fact that they 
are spread out over so many years (with so few in current times), means 
that our current method for identifying popular leaders is so very, very 
flawed.

Richard Fobes



On 9/23/2016 12:03 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
>
> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: Re: [EM] Cartoon about single-mark ballots
> From: "VoteFair" <ElectionMethods at VoteFair.org>
> Date: Fri, September 23, 2016 1:33 pm
> To: "election-methods at lists.electorama.com"
> <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  > On 9/19/2016 1:57 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>  > > Come to think of it, why do so few people in non-swing-states vote for
>  > > third-party candidates? It seems that if you're in a safe state, your
>  > > vote doesn't matter, and so you can vote for whoever you want for the
>  > > signal effect.
>
> it's really the same reason why so many people watch crap on TV or why
> so many listen to music that's crap or eat crap at McD or buy crap at
> WalMart.
>
> 3rd party candidates are like unknown indie bands.
>
>
>  > In the U.S., third-party presidential candidates are not really
>  > qualified for the job.
>
> that's a matter of opinion.
>
> this year it should be obvious that even a major party candidate is
> hardly qualified for the job. but i agree with you that neither Gary
> Johnson nor Jill Stein are qualified.
>
> i think in 2000 (and i am still pissed at him for running that year)
> Ralph Nader would have been qualified for the job.
>
> and in 1980, most certainly John Anderson was qualified.
>
>
> --
>
>
> r b-j rbj at audioimagination.com
>
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info