Two things:
First, as Paul Kislanko pointed out, with asset voting it wouldn't just be about a handful of candidates. Any idiot with a following could (and undoubtedly would) declare himself a candidate for President. Evangelists, talk show hosts, actors, self-help gurus, activists, psychics ("Ms. Cleo for President!"), you name it. So, to avoid a ballot with 10,000 names on it, it might be nice to have a significant signature requirement to participate.
First, as Paul Kislanko pointed out, with asset voting it wouldn't just be about a handful of candidates. Any idiot with a following could (and undoubtedly would) declare himself a candidate for President. Evangelists, talk show hosts, actors, self-help gurus, activists, psychics ("Ms. Cleo for President!"), you name it. So, to avoid a ballot with 10,000 names on it, it might be nice to have a significant signature requirement to participate.
(Just look at the number of candidates for the California gubernatorial recall. In addition to a State Senator, a State Assembly leader, and a few prominent businessmen, we had a whole bunch of freaks. Most of the freaks were obscure, but they also included a porn star, a midget actor-turned mall cop, an annoying pundit who would be nowhere if she hadn't married and then divorced a rich guy, and even an action star who can't handle scenes with dialogue.)
But that's a detail.
Another thought is that it might actually be pitched as a way to return to the original spirit of the electoral college: Have a bunch of widely-supported people (as well as Gary Coleman) show up and hash it out to make a decision.
Alex Small
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
