by steam_cannon » Mon 31 Mar 2008, 10:38:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'P')lain speaking. Clear thoughts. We could do worse. Come to think of
it - we HAVE worse.
As I said, nothing against him, and he even has some good policies.
But I don't know that he's electable as president in a first past the
post system like in the US. I think his running would only fragment
the vote, like the democratic party presently having two candidates.
The democratic candidate thing is a little weird at this point but will
probably sort it self out with Billary dropping out after sufficiently
damaging Obama.
And usually in elections there is a third party candidate fragmenting
the vote, that sensible people think would be pretty good and
change a lot of things. Of course since this leaches votes from the
middle ground candidate, an extremist candidate gets elected.
That is if you can believe election results anyway.
I like Ventura, I like Ron Paul, but our flawed electoral system is
winner takes all. We could have a parliament where minority parties
can win a % of seats. But what we have is first past the post,
winner takes all system. In our system, fragmented voting on
minority parties improves the chances for more extreme parties.
It politically incorrect to say "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." But
until we have a revolution, that's kind of how it works around here.
In this election a vote for Ventura will be a vote for McCain. It
certainly would work great for getting McCain in. White guys that
don't like McCain but also don't like blacks or women will vote
Ventura. Intellectuals who like bad asses with a history of change,
will vote for Ventura. And if Billary keeps hammering away against
Obama, McCain is a shoe in.
We have done worse then Ventura and with him in the election we
probably will have "worse then Ventura". Lap it up!