Re: Free market elections (for countrys that believe the free market)

In reply to theowonk, 
I would like to say this. Using single transferrable vote, George Bush the
first would have beaten Clinton by way of Perrots second preferences. This
would have been the correct result because in a straight Clinton versus
Bush contest, perrot voters would have chosen Bush. Likewise, there would
have been no Bush the second because a majority of the american people
PREFERED Gore. The Nader people would have voted Gore. I contend that a
voting system that gives the people the candidate that the majority doesnt
prefer is a bad system. 
Also, no law stops other partys nominating candidates. But the laws of
preception prevent people voting for them. If I take time off work to vote,
I will want my vote to count. In the straight vote system, to do that, I
must vote for one of the 2 front runners. It is as if I went into a store
and ordered cola. (not pepsi or coke just the ordinary local brew).
Put the store owner sends my money to pepsico or the coke company anyway.
But even more perversly, he sends it to the one of the 2 than I least like
to drink!
This, my friends, is stoopid.
In the country of the holy free market, you might as well have a voting
system that mimics the real thing. And that is single transferrable vote.
Regardless of country size, it works better.
Brian White

Theowonk wrote:

>> I am wondering if it can be tried in the USA or Canada. Would it be legal
>> to offer people choice here?
> 
> The 2 party system in the United States is not a legal requirement.
> Rather, it is the reality that has developed over a two-hundred year
> process of political life.  No law prevents other parties from
> organizing and nominating candidates.  Most often, you see it happen
> effectively at the local level (city or county), or at the state
> level.
> 
> The state of New York, for example is home to no less than 12
> political parties:
>      Democrat          Republican            Green
>      Libertarian       Unified Independant   Conservative
>      Independance      Liberal               Marijuana Reform
>      Communist         Socialist             Working Families
> Lets not even start talking about California! <grin>
> 
> Comparing Ireland's system of political parties to the United States
> is difficult because of the vast population difference.  The
> population of Ireland is about 5.5 million people.  The population of
> the United States is about 285 million (about 52 times the size of
> Ireland).  Even comparing New York State to Ireland is a bit of a
> stretch, becuase New York State has a population of about 19 million
> (even New York City has a larger population than Ireland, with about 8
> million people). I think the population difference is important,
> because the multiple party system you suggest may work better among
> (relatively) smaller populations than for larger ones.
> 
> Still, allow me to describe the way in which "third parties" function
> as a practical matter in our national political life, and the
> significance they have.
> 
> Currently, there are five "major" third parties at the national level
> in the US: Constitution, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law, and Reform.
> By "major" I mean that at least one of their candidates has received
> more than 100,000 votes in an election in the last 20 years. Of these,
> the Green and Reform parties have been the most significant in recent
> years.  There are also at least 10 "minor" third parties.
> 
> In a country of 285 million people, third parties will naturally have
> difficulty winning state-wide elections (ie for Governor, or for the
> US Senate-- though Jesse Ventura won the Governorship of Minnesota as
> the Reform Party candidate, and US Senator Jim Jefferts of Vermont is
> an Independent).  Winning the Presidency, the only nation-wide
> election, is virtually impossible.  The reason is simply that the
> third parties tend to have only one (or a small handful) of issues
> that they are interested in (cf. Marijuana Reform Party in New York
> State <grin>). This means that they tend to appeal only to a small
> percentage of voters.  Most Americans are unwilling to "throw away"
> their vote (thereby giving up influence on a broad range of issues) in
> order to vote for a guy they know won't be elected, even if he is
> saying precisely what they think on one particular issue.
> 
> This does not mean, however, that third parties are without influence.
> Traditionally, third parties at the national level will shape the
> national political discourse and the agenda's of the two major
> parties.  When a third party becomes "hot," gaining voters and
> influence, one of the major parties tends to adopt their agenda and
> rhetoric.  Third parties thus have the effect of pulling the major
> parties back towards their respective political polls. While the
> difference between political left and right in the US is not as wide
> as it is in Europe, the minor parties prevent the two major parties
> from becoming indistinguishable to the American voter.
> 
> Of course, the other effect of rising minor parties is precisely what
> you described in the 1992 and 2000 Presidential elections.  Ross Perot
> (Reform) "stole" enough votes from George H.W. Bush (Republican) to
> hand the election to Bill Clinton (Democrat).  The result was a
> clarion call to the Republican party to respect its conservative base
> (esp. anti-tax positions).  That call was heeded (finally) in the 2000
> election. Ralph Nader (Green) "stole" enough votes from Al Gore
> (Democrat) to hand the 2000 election to George W. Bush (Republican) in
> the 2000 election.  The Democrats have heeded the call of their base
> to be more liberal.
> 
> To end the long discourse, a word about the difference between
> primaries and general elections.  The American political system
> requires "general" elections by law.  The standards for being placed
> on the ballot are set by the respective states for offices in the
> state and for national office (House, Senate, Presidency).  Anyone who
> meets those requirements gets on the ballot. Usually this means
> nomination by a political party (the test there is usually pretty
> minor and easy to meet) OR a minor filing fee and signatures on a
> petition (also usually minor and easy to meet).  For example, in the
> recent race for California governor, all that was required was a
> $3,000 entrance fee and 3,000 signatures... over 100 candidates made
> it onto the ballot.  The sucess of the Reform and Green parties in the
> last 15 years is due to the fact that they were able to pull together
> enough money and organization to get their presidential candidate on
> the ballot in most of the states... and still have the resources left
> to actually campaign. (It takes a lot more work and funds to get on 50
> ballots and campaign to 285 million people than it does to get on only
> one ballot and campaign to 5.5 million, or even 19 million!)
> 
> Primaries are the elections that parties hold among party members to
> nominate their candidate for those general elections.  Usually only
> party members can vote in those elections (though strangely, this is
> not always the case).  A candidate who fails to gain his or her
> party's nomination can still run in the general election by filing the
> petition and fee.  This usually does not happen, however, because it
> would effectively kill that candidate's relationship with their own
> party... making it difficult to win (lacking the party's help in
> campaigning) and difficult to govern if elected.  Yet, it does happen.
>  In the 1980 Presidential election, John Anderson ran for the
> Republican nomination against Ronald Reagan.  Reagan won the
> nomination, but Anderson decided to run as an Independant (no
> political party) in the general election.  He lost, but did receive 6
> million votes.
> 
> I hope that this gives you a better sense of how the American
> political system works, and why it seems to me that a system of
> political parties similar to that of Ireland is unlikely to function
> at the national level in the United States.  In short, no law in the
> United States (or in any of the States) limits the number of political
> parties to the major two (Democrat and Republican).  Alternative
> ("third") parties are more likely to be able to elect candidates at
> the state level, because at the national level they tend to be
> absorbed by one of the major parties when they become "hot" (taking
> votes away from that major party), or simply aren't able to muster the
> support in terms of volunteers and funds to get on the ballot in
> enough states to have a realistic chance of winning.  At the national
> level, "third" parties function positively to pull the major parties
> back to a more pure expression of their respective political
> philosophies.
> 
> If you want to read more about current and historical "third" parties
> in the United States, I suggest you check out:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States