From: lucien.saumur@synapse.org (Lucien Saumur) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: EC PROTECT MINORITY RIGHT
Date: 12 Dec 92 12:54:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: lucien.saumur@synapse.org (Lucien Saumur) 

>To: alt.politics.usa.constitution
>From: lucien.saumur@synapse.org

In article <1992Dec11.144749.24149@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com
(Mike Best) writes:
> In article <610.1657.uupcb@synapse.org> lucien.saumur@synapse.org >
> (Lucien Saumur)  writes:
>> [apology of the theory deleted]
>>
>>     To win, a candidate must, at once, be preferred to every other
>> candidate and be acceptable to the majority of the voters.
>
> The two party system with the EC accomplishes this.  Are you
> implying by the term "majority" that it must be a certain
> percentage like "over 50%"?

     The two-party system is the quasi-inevitable product of the
existing electoral system. This electoral system discourages
third-party candidates by compelling the people to vote
strategically. I am proposing a system which would eliminate the need
to vote in this way.

>>     I am convinced that this system is the only truly democratic
>> system possible. Yet it could not have been implemented in
>> Condorcet's days because the required technology did not then
>> exist. This is no longer the case today and I am convinced that a
>> voting and vote counting system may be created which would be as
>> manipulation-proof as any other system.
>
> First of all, a truly democratic system is not a good match with
> the design of our form of government.  My counter-post could end
> right here.
>
> Second, electing everyone's second choice does nothing to further
> the legitimization of the election.  It deflates expectations and
> mandates resulting in weaker executives.  If you have studied
> republican forms of government then you realize that they all have
> a tendancy toward the aggrandizement of the legislature.  We need a
> strong executive to counter-balance the encroachments of the
> legislature.

     I am merely trying to define an electoral system where
individuals would not be elected by a minority of the voters. In so
doing, I am proposing electoral reforms and no more. The issue of the
relationship between the branches of government is a much broader one
which cannot be considered unless we are prepared to discuss
constitutional systems and constitutional reforms.

> Third, though the vote counting system can be made
> manipulation-proof, you have to also account for the human factor.
> What I mean to say is that you have not considered that in your
> system, which would undoubtedly be comprised of multiple parties,
> the potential exists for behind the back deal making.  That is, a
> candidate appears to be a viable number two choice on _many_
> ballots and other less popular candidates might,in exchange for
> some concession (supreme court, policy, etc), lend their
>support for the secondary candidate.

     I think that my proposed electoral system would lessen the
importance of parties in politics by encouraging candidates to stand
on their own rather than as members of parties. It would also do away
with behind-the-back deal-makings, because it would be the people
rather than other politicians who would decide who deserves to be
elected.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution