>
Bart writes:
> candidates first. People currently vote against candidates because they
> frequently have no other choice -- i.e. "lesser of two evils". I
> thought the reason for election reform was to get away from that
> necessity.
Of course, and, as Demorep will assure you, that's my m
New Democracy wrote:
>
> [deleted]
> Bart wrote:
> >2. If "most hated" candidates are to be excluded, there should be a way
> >to distinguish truly hated candidates from those who are ranked last
> >merely because they compete with the voter's favorite -- in other words,
> >there should be no adv
> Bart Ingles wrote:
> >
> > 1. Unknown candidates lose. There should be a way to distinguish
> > between candidates who have a consensus, and those who are simply in the
> > middle because the most popular candidates are also the most hated.
Mike Osipoff wrote:
>
> Maybe that isn't possible.
Dear Bart Ingles,
You wrote:
>1. Unknown candidates lose. There should be a way to distinguish
>between candidates who have a consensus, and those who are simply in the
>middle because the most popular candidates are also the most hated.
Donald: There is a way. Simply do not use more than one c
>
> 1. Unknown candidates lose. There should be a way to distinguish
My mailer failed to copy the beginning of this message, so I've
filled in the begioning of the 1st sentence:
[There should be a way to distinguish...]
> between candidates who have a consensus, and those who are simply in t
1. Unknown candidates lose. There should be a way to distinguish
between candidates who have a consensus, and those who are simply in the
middle because the most popular candidates are also the most hated.
2. If "most hated" candidates are to be excluded, there should be a way
to distinguish tru
