| Super Moderator  Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Seattle (grew up around D.C.) Gender:  Posts: 7,881 Country:  Points: 28,552, Level: 99 | Level up: 13%, 1,448 Points needed |  |  Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaxian  Well, I do think IRV is a good idea, but IRV doesn't solve the problem that the wrong sort of people are raising to popularity. It is the wealthy, charismatic, trash-talkers who gain popularity, not the intelligence people who have the right stance on the issues. IRV might help us choose the best out of five bad candidates, but they're still bad candidates. | I disagree that IRV will fail to improve the quality of candidates. Take the 2000 election. If we had IRV implemented more people would have voted for Nader instead of trying to prevent a Bush win via Kerry. Now I don't think Nader would have won even if IRV was in place but I do think the green party would have gotten the 5% of the total vote they needed to get federal funding. Over time 3rd parties would gather strength and compete with the two party monopoly and provide quality candidates.
As far as the electoral college is concerned... I appreciate the information you presented. But there is one thing that bugs me about your assessment. If Madison and the like thought the people were not smart enough to vote for our president then why consider 5 slaves equal to 3 regular votes? They aren't allowed to vote but they still enter the equation. It doesn't make sense to me... if the electoral college wasn't started because of the slave population in the south then why would it be necessary at all if only the wealthy elite were voting anyway? --- help me Instant Runoff Voting, you're my only hope --- There is little doubt that the world in general is more liberal than it was 50 years ago and beyond. Conservatives are simply roadblocks on the path to an ever more progressive and liberal world. What a sad existence. |