Forgot about that...good point!

Worst god damn excuse on earth. Weak Weak Weak. Sounds like military reasoning. I hate that shit... "Why do we do it this way when there is a better way?" ... "Because we have done it this way for 200 years..." That's such a cop-out. Slavery worked for thousands of years... Gues2 we should not have gotten rid of that either? Feudalism worked for a long time, should we still be doing that? Come on man, open your mind, get with the times. Use your head.

It's not a good point at all. The fact is that Perot would have won had he not dropped out from the race, and the only reason he did so well is that he's so stinking rich that he could afford to back himself. Oh and here's a big clue for you, political campaigns are a great way to avoid paying an estate tax... NPR just did a whole peice on that, but that's not the point.

The point is that Perot was a viable candidate, Buchanan was not, and that's where the validity of the complaint comes from.

NEXT!

C'mon Sarge, you at least used to be a little bit of a challenge, you used to make me have to think pretty hard...

Tadpole, you just said Perot would have won, that weakens your entire statement.

What in gods name makes you think he would have had a chance? Your right anyone with a legitamate chance of winning is going to just drop out of the race...

It is still one vote, but one that is much more fair than the current system.


http://www.polizeros.com/stories/200...offVoting.html

IRV is gaining popularity across the United States because its advantages are obvious.

One major plus is that IRV ensures that the candidate preferred by the majority actually wins. Too many of our presidents in recent decades have been elected with only 42% or 43% of the vote, far short of a majority.

That makes people wonder if the winner was really the candidate most Americans wanted. So-called "spoiler candidates" often get blamed - Republicans blame those who vote for a Ross Perot, Democrats scold anyone casting their ballot for a Ralph Nader. As if voting for the person you believe is the best candidate was some sort of crime.

Instant runoffs solve the spoiler-candidate problem. Voters no longer have to agonize about "wasting" their vote on the candidate they believe is best. They no longer have to hold their nose and cast their vote for the lesser of two evils instead of voting their principles and their conscience.

In an instant runoff election, voters list the candidates in the order of their preference: "1st choice," "2nd choice," "3rd choice," and so on. If a candidate gets a majority of first choice votes, the election is over. But if no one gets a majority, the weakest candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated from the race and an "instant runoff" is held. This works just like a separate runoff election, only without the weeks of delay, lowered voter turnout, and extra cost of holding another election.

In an instant runoff, voters whose favorite candidate is still in the race have their vote counted for that candidate, just as if they their candidate had made it into a separate runoff election.

Voters whose first choice has been eliminated have their second choice count, just as if they were choosing among the remaining candidates in a separate runoff election. If there is still no majority winner, the next weakest candidate is eliminated and the votes of that candidate's supporters go to their next choice. This is done until one candidate wins a clear majority of the vote.

Because in each runoff tally every voter's ballot is counted for the candidate they most prefer among those still in the race, the winner is always the candidate preferred by the true majority.

If we had IRV in our last presidential election, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, and other minor party candidates would have been eliminated, leaving voters with a clear, final choice between Al Gore and George Bush, Jr. Whoever won, we would know they won because they represented the will of the majority of Americans.

American voters are embracing IRV because it solves the problem of spoiler candidates and non-majority winners in partisan races.

I don't know, maybe the fact that until he dropped out he had a huge lead in the polls? That was my first clue... Remember I am old enough to remember his campaign

I remember it and voted for him

I'm 27 and remember he made things pretty interesting. 3 people debating??? Is there really enough room

Tadpole, in 92 he only had about 20% of the vote before dropping out, that is hardly enough to declare him the victory. In 96 his support dropped to only 8%, real popular guy, he definately could have won. He might have been the most popular third party candidate, but, I hardly doubt that he could have won, especially with this centarlized power between the Democrats and the Republicans. If he could have won the Electoral College, I would have shit myself...

If a third party candidate ever wins, wea re gonna make sure that you shit yourself!