An excellent change to voting rules

[RethugAssKicker]

I briefly heard this morning, I thiink it was the Laura Flanders show on AAR an idea that seems perfect.

When there is a election with more than two parties, You select your first and second choice, rather than just your first choice.

If your first choice, does not win, then your 2nd choice now becomes your vote. So for example, in the election of 2004,
If you had voted for Nader, and your second choice was Kerry; your vote would have gone to Kerry.

This in effect makes a third party candidate no longer a spoiler. You can now vote for who you actually want to win, and don't need to worry anymore about throwing away your vote on a third party candidate.

This sounds like a fantastic idea. Anyone see any problems with this.... Again I haven't given it much thought, but at first glance sounds great!

[Dem Agog]

1. I see a problem with it...

It will never happen. A) It's too common sense for anyone to support it and B) The Diebold fix is in. Third party or no third party, I truly believe America will never have a President elected by its people again.

[Horse with no Name]

3. Unless the citizenry are patriotic enough

To change it.
WE THE PEOPLE can change it. We're the only ones that can.
Nobody will save us except us.

[Horse with no Name]

2. I also think a great change to the rules would be to report

the candidates home county results FIRST before ANY other precinct.

[RethugAssKicker]

8. why?

[AllegroRondo]

4. Its called 'instant runoff'

some places already do this, I think San Francisco does it for local elections.

It works - but it will be incredibly difficult to get it accepted nationwide as it makes the two parties less powerful.

[Broke In Jersey]

5. A problem she also mentioned though....

was that if we had that system in '92, Clinton would not have won because Perot took far more votes from the reps than the dems - we would have had another 4 yrs of GHWB.

[Blue-Jay]

6. Yep. Bad idea.

In fact, it's a horrendously dumb idea. Vote for you you think would be the best person (or at least the lesser of evils.)

I'd be more concerned with making sure that my vote actually gets counted.

[RethugAssKicker]

7. I don't think its dumb.

It can work to either partys advantage.

However, it will probably work like this:

If the 3rd party candidate is liberal - we win.
If the 3rd party candidate is conservative - we lose.

But its fair... and the big thing is: that it makes 3rd party candidates viable.. no longer a spoiler.

[Random_Australian]

9. We already have that system.

In a more complete way. You mark every candidate, in order of preference.
And we have compulsory voting.
And we have never been controlled by an angry minority. Just doesn't work when everybody votes.
Sounds like a good idea.