Posted on 10/24/2013 9:27:46 PM PDT by Maelstorm
If Bush I had won 1992, then Clinton might have been elected in 1996 and been president during 9/11. If there was an incumbent bump in 2004, Gore would’ve been elected. Then the economy crash would have put McCain in in 2008. And Obama might have beat him in 2012. And we’d be right back to where we are today, except with McCainCare instead of Obamacare.
It’s not baloney. You need to have a run-off, a multiple-choice ballot, or a ranked-choice ballot to have any idea what voters’ intent was. If 45% wanted the Dem but 55% would have taken either the libertarian or Republican over the Dem, but split the vote between them, then it’s undemocratic to let the Dem take office. Voting is about what the majority wants.
This is not pro or anti-third party. A run-off could benefit the third party just as easily as the Republican or Democrat. Run-offs arguably help the third party more, because all they have to do is come in second in order to get a chance to go head-to-head against just one of the major candidates. But the real issue is to require a majority of the voters to vote for the winner, not merely a plurality.
Oh, there are as many Republican traitors at the state level, believe me. Bill Bolling, our Romney-loving lieutenant governor, has refused to endorse Cuccinelli.
Also, earlier in the campaign I read that McAuliffe had bought off some Republicans in the Hampton Roads area. Sure enough, the Republican mayor of Virginia Beach pops up in a commercial, saying how proud he is to be endorsing a Democrat for the first time.
The other problem is that not requiring a majority to sign on to the winner opens up the potential for a more and more fringe candidate to win if the race has enough candidates. If a communist candidate can get 21% of the vote in a 5-man race, then he could win the election. Even though the other 79% might never have voted for him. No one should be given office without 50% of the public voting expressing support for them. Democracy doesn’t work otherwise and becomes a mockery or a sham potentially.
Hillary will take VA easily in 2016 without any help from McAwful.
McAuliffe is horrible. Praying that the Old Dominion elects the right man.
That is your version of democracy. It is not the commonly accepted one. Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote. Should we have had a runoff? Is the electoral college democratic? We have a republic not a democracy.
This is not pro or anti-third party. A run-off could benefit the third party just as easily as the Republican or Democrat. Run-offs arguably help the third party more, because all they have to do is come in second in order to get a chance to go head-to-head against just one of the major candidates. But the real issue is to require a majority of the voters to vote for the winner, not merely a plurality.
They have runoffs where the top two vote getters are members of the same party. What happens if the top two vote recipients receive 20% and 15% of the primary vote? When we have low turnout elections, does that represent democracy to you when just a small percentage of the eligible voters show up to the polls?
I have no problem with multiple parties nominating their candidates and the winner decided on the number of votes received even if it is a plurality. And then there is the practical aspect of it that relates to the costs of holding multiple elections to both the taxpayers and the candidates.
And then there is the real world where the vast majority of elections in this country don't have run-offs. That is not going to change because the two major parties don't want it to change nor do their supporters. You can argue about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, but it will have no impact on our electoral system. Maybe you should form a third party and make that your main objective.
The other alternative is to go to a parliamentary form of government and have proportional representation that gives smaller parties some political relevance.
Can you cite some real world examples where this has happened in the US? How many fringe candidates do we have in Congress or in state legislatures?
No one should be given office without 50% of the public voting expressing support for them.
We have numerous examples where this is the case in Congress and state legislatures and yes, the WH even though the President is not elected by popular vote? Do you support direct election of the President and VP?
Thank you for your prayers; indeed he is awful.
Cuccinelli wiped the floor with the greasy liar in last night’s debate. No thinking person could possibly vote for McAuliffe...but therein lies the problem.
I’m not talking about changing popular vs. electoral vote. I’m saying the 50% rule should apply anywhere the popular vote is counted. So in a presidential election, that would occur on the state level in most cases to determine who is awarded the electoral votes. I would have to check in how many states Clinton got the electoral votes without winning 50% of the vote in those states. But absolutely he should not have been the automatic winner in a state if he didn’t get 50% of the vote.
I don’t care what’s commonly accepted. I can point to examples where run-off elections are held. It’s not a fringe idea. And it’s not just my idea of democracy. It is done more in primaries probably because those are often multi-candidate races, where the example I cited is more likely to happen, with a candidate potentially being the winner with a small portion of the vote.
If you want to let the left continue to be two steps ahead on the chess board, you can wait to worry about runoffs until they have firmly planted right-leaning third party candidates in all important races, and they wipe out the Republicans that way. Run-offs protect against this kind of manipulation.
The costs can be handled with a different kind of ballot, an instant runoff or ranked choice ballot. If the ballots asked who your second choice is if the first doesn’t win, those can be counted as an instant run-off without needing to have the voters return to the polls.
A low turnout election is perfectly democratic. That means a lot of voters said they don’t care which one is elected, which is fine. They express their non-preference for either by not showing up.
I like our form of government the way it is. But the voters have to be allowed to express their true intention at the polls. I don’t care if it’s easily going to be done or not. I have no doubt what the most accurate way of voting is and I’ll ask everyone else to get on board. We can either prevent the dishonest Dems figuring out how to game the system ahead of time, or wait until it might be too late.
I had seen links to the debate posted elsewhere but haven’t had the chance to review them yet. And yes, you are quite right in that some elections are indeed decided by the unthinking ...
Bless your efforts and best of luck!
In 1992 Clinton only received 43% of the popular vote. Go state by state and you will see that Clinton didn't receive 50% of the vote in almost all of the states he won including NY. Arkansas was the only exception. And the same holds true for Bush.
American history is replete with such examples. So you are suggesting a runoff in every state where the Presidential candidate did not receive 50% of the vote? You would probably need a constitutional amendment to effect such a change. And that would never happen.
If you want to let the left continue to be two steps ahead on the chess board, you can wait to worry about runoffs until they have firmly planted right-leaning third party candidates in all important races, and they wipe out the Republicans that way. Run-offs protect against this kind of manipulation.
Both parties would support such measures to retain power. The RINOs would certainly support it to prevent a challenge on the right.
I don’t care what’s commonly accepted. I can point to examples where run-off elections are held. It’s not a fringe idea. And it’s not just my idea of democracy. It is done more in primaries probably because those are often multi-candidate races, where the example I cited is more likely to happen, with a candidate potentially being the winner with a small portion of the vote.
It is the exception not the rule. That should tell you something about its popularity. I don't care what is done locally or at the state level. It is the choice of the people. It should be a matter of free choice, not mandated. I don't see any popular movement to do what you want. Let the marketplace decide.
I like our form of government the way it is. But the voters have to be allowed to express their true intention at the polls. I don’t care if it’s easily going to be done or not. I have no doubt what the most accurate way of voting is and I’ll ask everyone else to get on board. We can either prevent the dishonest Dems figuring out how to game the system ahead of time, or wait until it might be too late.
Good luck at tilting at windmills. Why don't you start locally and convince people to follow your suggestion. Let's see how successful you are.
I wouldn’t mandate it or amend it at the federal level. Election law doesn’t normally happen at that level. But I would encourage the parties and localities and states to do it and hope it becomes a trend. It really doesn’t benefit the two party-system more than another party or vice versa. There are scenarios for one or the other where it could help or hurt them. It’s something everyone should support since it means a fairer representation of what the majority of voters want.
When elections are at the federal level, that is where the law is written. Check out Constitution.
It’s something everyone should support since it means a fairer representation of what the majority of voters want.
If the majority of voters want it, they will adopt it. So far, they have not.
Again, do you support the direct election of the President and VP, i.e., by popular vote?
I dunno about that FReeper but my answer would be NO WAY. I'd rather go back to letting state legislatures decide.
I agree with you. It also undermines federalism the same way the 17th amendment did.
One problem is some big money backers of Bob McDonnell and Bill Bolling have sown dissension and withheld money from the campaign. They don’t like that Ken Cuccinelli will not be bought. Its not that he’s socially conservative. Bob McDonnell has the same positions on social issues as Ken which is Ken is solidly prolife and pro traditional family. What McAuliffe has been doing is has been just running ads that are claiming Cuccinelli wants to ban birth control which is a lie. This is one reason for the big women gap in the polling.
Not a good trend IMO.
If cuchinelli loses, the 3rd party is partially to blame.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.