From: lucien.saumur@synapse.org (Lucien Saumur) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: RE: EC PROTECT MINORITY R
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:46:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: lucien.saumur@synapse.org (Lucien Saumur) 

In article <1992Dec15.154917.19392@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com
(Mike Best) writes:
>In article <623.1657.uupcb@synapse.org> lucien.saumur@synapse.org
>(Lucien Saumur)  writes:
>
>>     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 see your direction now.  Are you merely interested in introducing
>viable third, fourth, etc. candidates into the election?  I would
>find this to be a destabilizing approach because you simply cannot
>have several viable candidates who are all middle of the
>road/moderates. What _could_ happen is that more extremist
>candidates could have a real chance to win an election.

     It may be the case that I have not explained my proposed
electoral system as clearly as I should have done. The system
requires that the voters rank the candidates and that the election
results be viewed as a number of two-candidate sub-elections, where
the candidate who wins every sub-election to which he is a party is
the winner.

     This system does not favor the single "extremist" candidate
running against many "moderate" candidates, because every moderate
candidate would defeat the extremist candidate on a one-to-one basis
and would then be running against each other to determine the
moderate candidate who is preferred to every other moderate
candidate.

     In fact, the electoral system , that I am proposing, would deter
the candidacy of extremists who could only find their candidacy
worthwhile in a system where the moderates "split" the vote. In my
proposed system, there is no such a thing as vote-splitting.

>>     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.
>
>This is a populist goal that is by no means the single most
>important criterion in an election (hang on to your hats!).  The
>majority principle is not an absolute by any stretch of the
>imagination in constitutional terms.  If it were to be adopted then
>the equality among states in the Constitutional ammendment process
>would be in doubt (why should Rhode Island have an equal vote to
>California?) as would the representation in the Senate (for the same
>reason).
>
>What we have today is a popular _federal_ election (federal as in
>states). Though the people do not really understand the EC, they do
>understand the importance of winning states and they accept it.

     I understand the attachment that the American people have for
their political system and this attachment is justified when one
considers what is happening everywhere else in the world. However, I
do not believe that the American political system is perfect. In
fact, I think that it is capable of significant improvements, but I
do not think that the American people are ready to gamble, with their
political system, at the national level. Rather, I suggest that my
proposed system be tried, on an experimental basis, at the local
level or in another country (such as Canada), where things are so bad
that they cannot be made worse. Then, we will see if the system is as
good as I think that it is.
                                                                                                         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution