CDR: Re: Parties

[BENHAM TIMOTHY JAMES]

Sampo writes:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Eric Murray wrote:
> 
> >Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive
> >in just because the media says that they're "not electable"?
> >That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest
> >that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore).
> >Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner"
> >than they are in voting their concious.
> 
> That's commendable idealism, but in most modern countries the electorial
> process is practically guaranteed - and in fact mostly designed - to in
> essence round out dissent. The fact that voting for the loser implies
> casting your vote for nothing, *even in matters which had nothing to do
> with the winner being elected*, simply means that there is absolutely no


That's simply a result of the dim-bulb "first past the post" voting system
that the US (and apparently you) endure. In countries with electorates that
are expected to be able to count past 1 (eg Australia) they have 
preferential voting and you can express your preferences from 1 to N
(the number of candidates).

This allows you to express your preference for libertarian drug-taking
pornographers and still have an equal impact on the outcome.

Tim