<HTML><BODY> From: bql@bolson.org<br>
><br>
><br>
> Here's a couple links that talk about this terrible "solution" to the<br>
> spoiler problem:<br>
> http://www.nmef.org/solution.htm<br>
> http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/07/new_party_pushe.html<br>
><br>
> Ok, yeah, no journalistic integrity, I'm pre-biasing you all against thi<br>
> stuff, oh well.<br>
<br>
It doesn't seem that bad. It is clearly better than<br>
plurality. It allows voters better expressivity, even if it still<br>
requires tactical voting.<br>
<br>
Clearly, it isn't the best, but it is an improvement.<br>
<br>
> They seem to think that the 2000 US President ballot might have looked<br>
> something like this:<br>
> __ Bush, Republican Party<br>
> __ Gore, Democratic Party<br>
> __ Bush, Libertarian Party<br>
> __ Gore, Green Party<br>
> __ Bush, Total World Domination Party<br>
> __ Gore, Working Families Party<br>
><br>
> A) Great way to continue to ensure the irrelevance of 3rd parties.<br>
<br>
They would be slightly less irrelevant. Centerists would be even more<br>
relevant.<br>
<br>
> B) Yeah, right, like the Greens/Libertarians would ever go along with<br>
> this.<br>
<br>
It is better than the current system. There is a good arguement<br>
that it is equivalent to IRV in alot of cases. However, ofc, it<br>
allows the candidate's parties to choose the transfers. This is <br>
IMO a bad thing as ideally voters should be the ones choosing.<br>
<br>
Hmm, maybe it could be considered equivalent to asset voting where<br>
the votes are transfered before the election is held? (and without<br>
the whole getting all the candidates in one place to transfer<br>
the votes).<br>
<br>
> C) No improvement in choice. Still only 2 choices on the ballot. (Though<br>
> some see this as an improvement since then there won't be spoiled<br>
> elections.)<br>
<br>
However, expression is increased. You can choose to express your<br>
support for a 3rd party while still voting for a major party.<br>
<br>
The real question is how would 3rd parties be treated under this system,<br>
would major parties treat them like they do the voters, promise the world<br>
and then ignore them until the next election is upcomming.<br>
<br>
Also, it wouldn't increase the power of 3rd parties that have extreme<br>
view. For example, if the Greens were to threaten to switch to the<br>
Republicans, the Democrats would probably ignore them. Even if the<br>
leadership of the Greens wasn't bluffing, their voters are going to vote<br>
for<br>
<br>
___ Bush, Green Party<br>
<br>
no matter how much the Green's leadership says that they have<br>
obtained a better deal from the Republicans. OTOH, maybe the <br>
Greens could say that they will support the Republicans if the<br>
Republicans run a more enviromentally candidate.<br>
<br>
However, centerist parties could do quite well under this system. A<br>
party that is willing (and who's supporters are willing) to align<br>
with either of the major parties will have its power enhanced.<br>
<br>
I don't think that it is the best system. Something like STV-PR is<br>
better as it explicitally gives each party a number of seats linked<br>
to its vote share.<br>
<br>
The real issue is how it would handle changes to the top two <br>
parties. For example, if on the previous election it was<br>
<br>
Candidate A, Party A: 25% <br>
Candidate A, Party B: 30%<br>
Candidate C, Party C: 45%<br>
<br>
Would party B be able to argue that its candidate should be<br>
the one to represent the A+B ticket? However, if all anyone sees<br>
is 55% - 45%, then nobody knows the relative intra-ticket support.<br>
<br>
One other thing. It is quite possible that parties would use this<br>
system to trade support between districts. Two parties could<br>
trade support in one district for another. A party with 5% might<br>
agree to support a major party in 10 districts in exchange for<br>
them supporting their candidate in one.<br>
<br>
Voter trading would only work if parties could consistantly <br>
maintain a reasonable amount of their support no <br>
matter who they pick.<br>
<div class="AOLPromoFooter">
<hr style="margin-top:10px;" />
<a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1081283466x1074645346/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaim%2Ecom%2Ffun%2Fmail%2F" target="_blank"><b>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail</b></a> -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.<br />
</div>
</BODY></HTML>