Eric Jorgensen and I were talking about ballot measures and voting systems as we trailed our trick-or-treating boys on Halloween night. One of the methods we discussed was range voting in which voters assign an acceptability score to various candidates or choices. Think of it like giving each option an approval rating. The candidate or option with the highest total score wins.
I like the idea. It seems emotionally more satisfying to be able to express your level of support for a candidate or outcome instead of an all or nothing approach.
In our current political environment, there are no viable third-party candidates. Casting a vote for someone other than a Democrat or Republican is more likely to spoil the chances of the candidate you would have selected if forced to choose between the two major parties. I hear people talk about the election between George Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. Bill Clinton won with less than a majority of votes. If you were to give just the Perot voters the chance to recast their votes, the story goes, they would have voted for George Bush. The implication is that a majority of voters didn't want Bill Clinton to be president. Maybe it would have gone the other way, but you get the point. Under our current system where a single voter is given a single vote, it's possible for a majority of voters to be dissatisfied with the outcome.
I was never fully in favor of or fully opposed to either Senator Obama or Senator McCain in this year's election. I didn't feel like casting my full support in favor of either candidate, but neither did I wish to fully disregard one of them. I would have preferred a voting system that let me honestly declare my level of approval. Under such a system I may have taken more time to investigate other candidates and reward them according the degree they support my views. When the results were made known, I might have discovered that there were a lot of people who found various third-party candidates acceptable. Who knows how that might change the political landscape.
Imagine a world in which we could only shower our love on one person. What a sad place. Isn't it better to be more supportive instead of less?
I like the idea. It seems emotionally more satisfying to be able to express your level of support for a candidate or outcome instead of an all or nothing approach.
In our current political environment, there are no viable third-party candidates. Casting a vote for someone other than a Democrat or Republican is more likely to spoil the chances of the candidate you would have selected if forced to choose between the two major parties. I hear people talk about the election between George Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. Bill Clinton won with less than a majority of votes. If you were to give just the Perot voters the chance to recast their votes, the story goes, they would have voted for George Bush. The implication is that a majority of voters didn't want Bill Clinton to be president. Maybe it would have gone the other way, but you get the point. Under our current system where a single voter is given a single vote, it's possible for a majority of voters to be dissatisfied with the outcome.
I was never fully in favor of or fully opposed to either Senator Obama or Senator McCain in this year's election. I didn't feel like casting my full support in favor of either candidate, but neither did I wish to fully disregard one of them. I would have preferred a voting system that let me honestly declare my level of approval. Under such a system I may have taken more time to investigate other candidates and reward them according the degree they support my views. When the results were made known, I might have discovered that there were a lot of people who found various third-party candidates acceptable. Who knows how that might change the political landscape.
Imagine a world in which we could only shower our love on one person. What a sad place. Isn't it better to be more supportive instead of less?
Comments