[olug] OT: PSA

[Kevin]

We are not necessarily a 2 party system; we are effectively, though.

Suppose there are 4 parties(A, B, C, & D), representing 32%, 29%, 21%, and
18%(I just pulled those numbers out of thin air) of the population at
election #1. Parties C & D are going to merge so they can get 39% of the
population and a majority. That merger will create a 5th party(E) and
abolish C & D. The proportions for parties A, B, & E are now at 32%, 29%,
and 39%. Then parties A & B will merge so they can get 61% of the vote and
between them, gain the majority back. Thus, you have 2 parties. I don't
remember enough of my college government class to see the way around it,
though(something about a winner-take-all system, though?).


On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 20:04, Dan Anderson <dan-anderson at cox.net> wrote:

> We are certainly a 2 party system - which is a type of plurality
> voting system characterized by elections that are generally between
> people of 2 parties.
>
> Suggesting that we are not a 2 party system because we have a
> plurality voting system is like suggesting that a dog is not a canine
> because it is a mammal .
>
> Be that as it may - my point was that exactly what you would expect in
> a 2 party system would be contests between, more or less, 2
> people/parties.
>
> If we don't have more then 2 candidates - I don't see any point to
> Condorcet voting other then to complicate the process.  Really, the
> bar to get on the ballot isn't really that high here.  It's possibly a
> chicken and egg thing to some degree, but until/unless we had a viable
> third party - it doesn't seem useful to complicate things.
>
> I suspect that some of the reason for the lack of competition in some
> races here is due, IMO, to too many positions being partisan elected
> positions. As I recall, Assessor, Clerk, Sheriff and Treasurer were
> uncontested on my ballot.  I'm not sure that there is a point to any
> of those being partisan contests.  I'm also not entirely convinced
> that they all shouldn't just be employees and not elected officials.
>
> Dan
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Tim & Alethea Larson
> <thelarsons3 at cox.net> wrote:
> > On 11/2/10 4:50 PM, Dan Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >> Or we have a 2 party system with primaries to narrow the field?
> >
> > We don't have a two-party system.  We have a plurality voting system,
> which
> > heavily favors dominance by two parties.  (This is Duverger's Law.)
>  Anyone
> > who respects the idea of fairness and honest competition based on who has
> > the best ideas/platform (rather than who has the best political
> propaganda
> > machine) should check out alternative voting systems that don't have the
> > inherent shortcomings ("wasted vote", "lesser of two evils", sacrifice of
> > conscience for expediency) of Plurality.  I favor Condorcet methods,
> which
> > is what I used when tallying our votes for Luncheons in the past.
> >
> >
> > Tim
> > _______________________________________________
> > OLUG mailing list
> > OLUG at olug.org
> > https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
> >
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>