Replies

This California election is a wake-up call for those who want to revise a system that is based on plurality and not majority voting. In other words, this election is NOT based on Democracy!

California did not get into the current mess that it is in due to democrats alone. The plurality election system also was a negative factor, and will continue to be a negative factor until it is rejected. The election will run its course, but NOW is the time to begin planning a revision, when the arguments and reasoning are in an active state. Even if one's favorite candidate wins next week, the plurality election system will still be there as a negative factor in the next election.

It is interesting to think about the great harm to the election process by allowing plurality election laws to replace democracy, that is, majority election laws.

Point A: It will take a majority vote ( 50 percent of those voting plus one vote ) to recall CEO Gray-Davis, but only a plurality vote to choose a new CEO.

Point B: The true sillyness of this California election can be seen if all candidates, except for one, received exactly the same number of votes. The "except for one candidate" would receive one more vote than any of the other candiidates. Thus, the "winner" of the election for a new CEO for the seventh largest economy in the World would have won with a vote total of less than one percent. The "winner" would thus have been voted against by over 99 percent of those voting. The "winner" would have been chosen by the present plurality election laws.

Point C: It is useful to understand the predominate reasoning at this time so that a revision of the present system can improve the election procedure in the future. Example # 1.) "But, if Cruz wins because Tom split the vote, the cost to the conservative movement in California will be immeasurable." This quote is from the text of this post by Roy Haynes. What it demonstrates is an either-or, take-it-or-leave-it reasoning. It also demonstrates that any candidate who does not drop out is considered to be guilty of splitting the vote. If the right of free speech is so precious, and if the right to vote is also so precious, then what could be more important than to have an election process where each voter could express him or herself by voting for a candidate of their choice? The plurality voting system takes away candidates, by virtue of "doing what is best for the Party" BEFORE the voters have a chance to vote!

Example # 2.) "It's essentialy (sic) for everyone to recognize this is NOT a primary. It's a General and we need to support the strongest candidate in order to end the Bustamante-Davis regime." This is a quote from the reply by jagrmeister. This is an excellent window into the basic differences between democrats and Republicans. The democrats are an idea-bankrupt Party. They bow and scrape to whoever has the best chance of being elected, according to opinion polls taken by themselves, and their lackies: "The Media." Thus, the democrats unite behind one candidate long before the General Election. The Republican Party is a Party bursting with ideas, and candidates to state them. With the current plurality system, the Republicans are discouraged from seeking office if they are not the front-runner in the opinion polls. Thus, the opinion polls, and party loyalty exclude candidates and their ideas before the voter has been given the opportunity to vote.

Discussion: The most important thing is what is best IN THE LONG RUN for the State of California. I have made a case for revoking the current plurality election laws, and passing legislation requiring any public official to be elected by a majority of those voting in that election, or as many runoffs as it takes to achieve a majority vote by one candidate.

Whoever is the "winner" in the election next week will be the focus of the second most important thing: who will be the CEO of the seventh largest economy in the World? Between now and the end of the election our focus should be on the second most important thing, but at the same time be mindful that planning needs to begin now on the most important thing: returning Democracy to the voters of California.

Point B: The true sillyness of this California election can be seen if all candidates, except for one, received exactly the same number of votes. The "except for one candidate" would receive one more vote than any of the other candiidates. Thus, the "winner" of the election for a new CEO for the seventh largest economy in the World would have won with a vote total of less than one percent. The "winner" would thus have been voted against by over 99 percent of those voting. The "winner" would have been chosen by the present plurality election laws.

The exact same situation applies to the Presidency of the United States.
We have begun to expect Presidents to be elected by a majority vote, because historically there have been only two significant parties, and because the electoral system usually produces a strong majority, even when there is no significant majority in the popular vote. However no majority vote, except a brokered one in the House of Representatives is Constitutionally required

Perhaps you should go re read your high school Civics book before your next rant.

SO9