Well, if more states had runoff or instant runoff elections, we wouldn’t have to worry about spoilers. No one should be able to win with less than 50% of the people preferring them. That’s not democratic. If someone gets 45% of the vote, the majority of the voters might never have voted for them, but we don’t know that in a multi-candidate race without a runoff calculation.
Let’s keep in mind if Texas didn’t have a runoff in their Republican primary, Ted Cruz wouldn’t be a Senator now. He trailed Dewhurst in the primary, but Dewhurst only got 45%. The runoff was held and Cruz beat him 57 to 43.
“Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst failed to capture the 50 percent necessary to win the Republican nomination Tuesday, forcing him into an unpredictable nine week run-off campaign with former state Solicitor General Ted Cruz...”
“With 95 percent of the vote in, Dewhurst was leading the second-place Cruz, 45 percent to 34 percent.”
I agree entirely. I have suggested the same. I wish that the GOP would adopt it for primaries universally and I’d love if every state had a run off where candidates must get 50% to avoid a run off. It would benefit everyone except those who wish to spilt and dilute voters intent which of course is exactly what the political class want.
Baloney. Why isn't it democratic? We have had Presidents who have been elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. European democracies with parliamentary governments have multiple parties.
More and more Americans are becoming frustrated with our two party system. What we have now is really one party with two wings--Dem and Rep.