From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: EC protects two party system
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:49:17 GMT

In article <623.1657.uupcb@synapse.org> lucien.saumur@synapse.org (Lucien Saumur)  writes:
>>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 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.

>>>     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.
>>
>> 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.

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 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.

This is a good point, I'll think about it!

Mike Best

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution