[Grovenet] Dependent or Independent? (WAS: A DifferentChristmasPoem)

[David Morelli]

On Dec 15, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> How is that different from requiring a majority of the ballots be  
> cast for the winner?
>

It allows for a third or minor party to win.

In the 2000 election, it was Bush and Gore are running for  
president.  Negative campaigns are launched by both sides.  The  
people who believe the negative ads vote against Gore or against GW.   
The people who like the Peace & Freedom candidate, Libertarian  
candidate, Green candidate, Constitution candidate, Reform candidate,  
etc. vote for their candidate.
Who wins?

Under the current system, those who wish to defeat Bush vote for the  
one candidate most likely to beat him, Gore.  So the 50 million Gore  
votes are a combination of pro-Gore and anti-Bush.  Those who want  
defeat Gore vote for the candidate most likely to beat him, Bush.   
So, the 50 million votes Bush votes are a combination of pro-Bush and  
anti-Gore.

Under my proposal the pro Gore and anti Gore votes show, perhaps  
reducing him to a net 2 million.  The pro Bush and anti Bush votes  
show, perhaps reducing him to a net 2 million votes.  If Nader  
retains his 2.9 million votes, he wins.  To avoid that possibility,  
the campaigns for Gore and Bush would need to generate sufficient  
positive votes to stay above the other minor candidates.

Is my scenario possible?  I voted for Gore to block Bush.  Period.  I  
would have preferred to vote against Bush.

David