From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 03 Jan 93 08:59 PST
Subject: Re: GREENS & CANDIDATE ACCOUNTABILITY
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600004:cdp:1678600015:000:4265
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  3 08:59:00 1993


Chris,
 
Thanks for your comments.  Here's some responses.
 
YOU: I recently heard William F Buckley argues this model [proportional
     representation] because in the US some large percentage of congress
     members are democrats [you mean Democrats, with a capital "D"] while
     the population at large is prety much 50-50 dems/repubs.
 
Sure, I would agree with this.  Any reform to bring more of the common
people's views into Congress will open up the doors on both the right
and the left.  This is okay with me.  In fact, in a lot of ways I can
identify more with the Republicans than the Democrats.  When Republicans
talk about decentralization and local empowerment and the Democrats talk
about centralized bureaucracies, I am right with the Republicans.
 
In fact, I think that Jack Kemp's views on inner cities are some of the
best I have heard from the main stream.  (Personally, I would like to
see his enterprises be worker collectives, but I would go along as long
and it was guaranteed that these enterprises were locally owned and
operated, and not simply another vehicle for multi-national corporations
to find cheap land and labor.)
 
Unfortunately, based on the experience of military buildup and budget
deficits over the past 12 years, I think the Republicans lie through
their teeth when they talk about decentralism.  It seems they are only
shirking responsibility for social and environmental justice.
 
YOU: The thing is, if there was a vote of confidence held for clinton 
     tomorrow or next year it would end up as a vote of no confidence.
     6 out of 10 voters voted against clinton in the general election.
 
Some folks have been discussing that perhaps our balloting procedures
need modification.  They are suggesting that there be run-offs in
elections with more than two candidates.  During the first ballot,
people would be free to vote for who they *really* wanted to win.
For example, if someone *really* wanted Perot to win, but also wanted
Bush to loose, how would they vote?  A vote for Perot would be a wasted
vote, since "everyone knew" he didn't have a chance, so this person
decides instead to vote for Clinton.  By so voting, at least the
person can help Bush loose (his second choice), even if he can't
help Perot win (his first choice).
 
If, however, the voter knew that there would be run-off, he would
be free to vote for Perot in the first round without worrying about
helping to elect Bush (by not voting for Clinton).  Now, in the second
round, only the two top contenders would be on the ballot.  Assuming
the percentages in the last election, this ballot would contain Clinton
and Bush.  Also, assuming Clinton maintained his 44% from the first
round and Bush maintained his 39%, it would be clear it that it is
Perot's 17% that are up for grabs.
 
There are two benefits to this method of balloting.  The first is
that it allows voters to pick, in the first round, who they *really*
want to win, without worrying about wasting their vote.  They second
is that is will be clear in the second round, where the final contenders
got their support from.  Would Clinton win with 44% of his own votes
and 7% of Perot's, or would Bush win with 39% of his own and 12% of
Perot's?
 
YOU: This sounds good, So you would have one candidate that everybody
     knew was the NOTA [None of the above] candidate. Who would be that
     candidate. What heppens when they win.
 
The California Green Party uses a NOTA candidate only to close the
race for primaries, not general elections.  "Closing the race" means
that the party determines that there are no suitable candidates for
a particular race, or that it would be a strategic mistake, for the
Green Party to contest a particular position.
 
"What happens when they win?"  Nothing, which means there will be no
Green candidate in that race.
 
YOU: What about the other political groups.
 
My example of the benefits of proportional representation only showed
how it would work with two political parties (in the hypothetical
example, it was the Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers).  The real benefits
to democracy of a proportionally representative system is the way
that includes many other political groups.
 
Chris, hope you will continue in these discussions.
 
Dale