Anonymous user
Consecutive Runoff Approval Voting: Difference between revisions
Consecutive Runoff Approval Voting (view source)
Revision as of 04:37, 17 December 2006
, 17 years agono edit summary
imported>Robert K. Joyce (blues) mNo edit summary |
imported>Robert K. Joyce (blues) No edit summary |
||
Line 38:
This is really at the heart of the central dilemma of US politics. If you hope to have any influence on the ideological structure of US politics, you must capture one of two dominant parties, because the voting structure imposes a two party system. What distresses me more than anything is that virtually every political blogger around insists on courting a totally incorrect theory about why this is the case! This contention is that: ''"The winner take all system naturally reduces to 2 dominant parties and the Republicans were one of the two parties that survived"'' -- and this is just flat-out WRONG!!!
Careless thinking might lead us to see a ''winner take all syndrome'' as the cause of our inflexible two-party pseudo-democracy. BUT THAT IS TOTALLY WRONG. The real cause of the two-party pseudo-democracy is really the direct consequence of THE BLACK HAT SYNDROME! This Black Hat Syndrome (or "spoiler effect") is the outcome that results when we have a White Hat (relative to each individual voter -- say, for example, Ralph Nader), a Gray Hat (say, for example, John Kerry), and a Black Hat (say, for example, George W. Bush) in a political contest. You cannot vote for the White Hat without "sacrificing" the vote you would have otherwise used to fend off an election of the Black Hat. So you will just never get to vote for a White Hat,
I will now provide
Consecutive Approval Voting ---
|