Pete C. wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> Green and Libertarian parties are in place and ready to go. Get either
>> a few more seats and they get pushed closer to the center. There you
>> go. For years I have preferentially voted for them whenever they field
>> a candidate ...
>
> I don't see how any additional parties can become viable under the
> current voting structure. Possibly if things are changed to give people
> first and second choice votes, but without that there is simply too much
> risk of getting the worst candidate by diluting the votes.

In the winner-take-all seat of the Presidency I agree. It's less true
every step down the chain, though. By the time you get to the level of
State Assembly there's plenty of room for evolutionary change and the
party differences to move up the chain.

Here's where I think the key issue is - I don't see how any additional
parties can become viable under the current *media* structure. Folks
vote for the candidates discussed in the media. The media ignores every
candidate not in the two currently large parties. In essence the media
prevents any other party from growing. That didn't happen when the
Federalist and Whig parties were failing.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> > Doug Freyburger wrote:
> >
> >> Green and Libertarian parties are in place and ready to go. Get either
> >> a few more seats and they get pushed closer to the center. There you
> >> go. For years I have preferentially voted for them whenever they field
> >> a candidate ...
> >
> > I don't see how any additional parties can become viable under the
> > current voting structure. Possibly if things are changed to give people
> > first and second choice votes, but without that there is simply too much
> > risk of getting the worst candidate by diluting the votes.
>
> In the winner-take-all seat of the Presidency I agree. It's less true
> every step down the chain, though. By the time you get to the level of
> State Assembly there's plenty of room for evolutionary change and the
> party differences to move up the chain.
>
> Here's where I think the key issue is - I don't see how any additional
> parties can become viable under the current *media* structure. Folks
> vote for the candidates discussed in the media. The media ignores every
> candidate not in the two currently large parties. In essence the media
> prevents any other party from growing. That didn't happen when the
> Federalist and Whig parties were failing.

How do you explain all the media attention that Ross Perrot got? Or who
was it the last couple cycles, Ron Paul? How about Ralph Nader?

The media isn't the problem, it's the voting structure that produces too
much risk of getting the candidate you hate the most if you place your
vote on the long shot candidate.

Pete C. wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> Pete C. wrote:
>> > Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> >> Green and Libertarian parties are in place and ready to go ...
>
>> > I don't see how any additional parties can become viable under the
>> > current voting structure ...
>
>> Here's where I think the key issue is - I don't see how any additional
>> parties can become viable under the current *media* structure ...
>
> How do you explain all the media attention that Ross Perrot got? Or who
> was it the last couple cycles, Ron Paul? How about Ralph Nader?

Perrot and Nader were one-shot candidates. Perrot's Reform Party
languished quickly. Paul has passed in and out of the Libertarian Party
and is currently a Republican. He gets much less media attention than
his fund raising and popularity would suggest and the media consistantly
depicts him as unwinable.

> The media isn't the problem, it's the voting structure that produces too
> much risk of getting the candidate you hate the most if you place your
> vote on the long shot candidate.

This is another feature of the current two party system. A vote for
someone outside the two parties, by someone who regularly votes for one
of those two parties, is a loss to that party. It increases the chances
of the opposition winning. I address that issue by not being a part of
either party in the first place. I'm already lost to both.

I take the view that I know I'm voting for a candidate who will lose,
but to me it's more about voting for my principles than it is about
voting for a loser. Expressing my principles through my votes is more
important to me than dropping my principles to vote for a candidate I
don't want to win.

I also take the Ron Paul lesson to heart. His Libertarian supporters
get more influence that Republican members. I think of it as a lever.
On the inside I have less leverage. On the outside I have more. No
matter that my own opinions are much more centrist than more members of
my party I do it for the increased leverage. If the end result of my
votes is added pressure towards libertarian principles by either of the
two big parties then my vote wasn't wasted. It's a calculated approach.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> > Doug Freyburger wrote:
> >> Pete C. wrote:
> >> > Doug Freyburger wrote:
> >
> >> >> Green and Libertarian parties are in place and ready to go ...
> >
> >> > I don't see how any additional parties can become viable under the
> >> > current voting structure ...
> >
> >> Here's where I think the key issue is - I don't see how any additional
> >> parties can become viable under the current *media* structure ...
> >
> > How do you explain all the media attention that Ross Perrot got? Or who
> > was it the last couple cycles, Ron Paul? How about Ralph Nader?
>
> Perrot and Nader were one-shot candidates. Perrot's Reform Party
> languished quickly. Paul has passed in and out of the Libertarian Party
> and is currently a Republican. He gets much less media attention than
> his fund raising and popularity would suggest and the media consistantly
> depicts him as unwinable.
>
> > The media isn't the problem, it's the voting structure that produces too
> > much risk of getting the candidate you hate the most if you place your
> > vote on the long shot candidate.
>
> This is another feature of the current two party system. A vote for
> someone outside the two parties, by someone who regularly votes for one
> of those two parties, is a loss to that party. It increases the chances
> of the opposition winning. I address that issue by not being a part of
> either party in the first place. I'm already lost to both.
>
> I take the view that I know I'm voting for a candidate who will lose,
> but to me it's more about voting for my principles than it is about
> voting for a loser. Expressing my principles through my votes is more
> important to me than dropping my principles to vote for a candidate I
> don't want to win.
>
> I also take the Ron Paul lesson to heart. His Libertarian supporters
> get more influence that Republican members. I think of it as a lever.
> On the inside I have less leverage. On the outside I have more. No
> matter that my own opinions are much more centrist than more members of
> my party I do it for the increased leverage. If the end result of my
> votes is added pressure towards libertarian principles by either of the
> two big parties then my vote wasn't wasted. It's a calculated approach.

Calculated, but still problematic. Simply giving people a 1st and 2nd
choice would eliminate most of the problem and allow people to take the
long shot without the risk of getting the worst of the more likely
"winners".

Pete C. wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> I also take the Ron Paul lesson to heart. His Libertarian supporters
>> get more influence that Republican members. I think of it as a lever.
>> On the inside I have less leverage. On the outside I have more. No
>> matter that my own opinions are much more centrist than more members of
>> my party I do it for the increased leverage. If the end result of my
>> votes is added pressure towards libertarian principles by either of the
>> two big parties then my vote wasn't wasted. It's a calculated approach.
>
> Calculated, but still problematic. Simply giving people a 1st and 2nd
> choice would eliminate most of the problem and allow people to take the
> long shot without the risk of getting the worst of the more likely
> "winners".

I think the ranked voting system is in use in Australian politics and at
science fiction conventions to select the Hugo awards. It works very
well.

That and/or give people waited votes based on how much tax they paid
last year. For nearly the entire population the income to pay taxes is
a matter of long term choice made and reflectig that in votes would not
be a bad thing.

Recipes and such - This year the basil and parsely are going nuts. It
happens most years but this year we put them in one of the big flower
pots not one of the little ones so they ar egoing more nuts than usual.
I took a bag of basil to the office this morning in case anyone wants it
to make pesto. I've had salads there were half basil or half parsely
many times recently. Yum.