Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!

[Razer]

This "Law" assumes there are two distinct parties with two different
ideologies. There aren't, There are two right wing (traditionalist for a
start) factions of a one party (American exceptionalist ideology) state.

Besides:
231,556,622 eligible voters

46.9% didn't vote
25.6% voted Clinton
25.5% voted Trump

Nobody is president.

Simple, elegant. A workaround for "Duverger's Law" whoeverthefuck
Duverger is/was.

Rr


On 11/09/2016 01:01 PM, jim bell wrote:
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at rushpost.com>
> 2. As a result of #1, a vote for any candidate who finishes below second
> place is effectively the same as voting for the eventual winner. Put
> another way, it robs the second place candidate of the votes needed to
> win.
>
> This is called "Duverger's Law".  See:
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
> "In political science
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science>, *Duverger's
> law* holds that plurality-rule
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system> elections
> (such as /first past the post
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_past_the_post>/) structured
> within single-member districts
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-member_districts> tend to favor
> a two-party system
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system> and that "the double
> ballot majority system
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system>and proportional
> representation
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation> tend to
> favor multipartism."^[1]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#cite_note-1> ^[2]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#cite_note-2>  The
> discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Duverger>, a French sociologist
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociologist> who observed the effect
> and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In
> the course of further research, other political scientists
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scientist> began calling the
> effect a "law <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law>" or principle.
> Duverger's law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a party system
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system> and an electoral system:
> a proportional representation
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation> (PR)
> system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party
> development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller
> political parties, resulting in what is known as a two-party system.
> While a principle of political science, in practice most countries
> with plurality voting have more than two parties. While the United
> States is very much a two-party system, the United Kingdom, Canada and
> India have consistently had multiparty parliaments.^[3]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#cite_note-3> ^[4]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#cite_note-4>  Eric
> Dickson and Ken Scheve argue that there is a counter force to
> Duverger's Law, that on the national level a plurality system
> encourages two parties, but in the individual constituencies
> supermajorities will lead to the vote fracturing.^[5]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#cite_note-5>
>
> "So... in Texas, Trump won. That means voting for Gary Johnson was the
> same as voting for Trump. Voting for Jill Stein was the same as voting
> for Trump. Voting for Evan McMullin was the same as voting for Trump.
> If everyone in Texas who had voted just for Gary Johnson had voted for
> Hillary instead, we'd be having an entirely different discussion because
> Trump would not have won."
>
> This development is, in general, very good for Libertarians such as
> myself.  It means that we are going to be consistently influencing
> elections, probably from here on in.  And that means that the two
> major candidates will have to start listening to libertarians.
>
> >I will say this: at least Jill Stein or Evan McMullin couldn't have been
> >any worse than Trump. But the system as it stands now doesn't even give
> >them, or others who run outside of the two major parties, a realistic
> >chance to win the presidency. This sucks, but it is what it is.
>
> My proposed solution is to give each candidate for a Congressional
> office influence in voting, proportionate to the vote totals in the
> election.  If there are three candidates, A, B, and C, with 50%, 45%,
> and 5% of the vote, the minority candidate gets an office elsewhere,
> and can neutralize part of the vote of the majority-vote candidate, if
> he wishes.
> If the majority-vote candidate is voting on something that is
> uncontroversial, agreed with by the minority-vote candidates, his vote
> will get an influence of 100%.  If the minority candidates choose the
> opposite position, the net result will be 50-45-5=0:  There will be no
> net vote from that state.
>
>                      Jim Bell
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 24036 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20161109/f9838b14/attachment.txt>