Consider a “flawed plurality voting system”


Or consider the Ranked Voter Choice option.

This option allows each vote to be cast not just FOR only one candidate on each ballet while being forced to remain silent on all of the others, rather each vote would rank every candidate presented on the ballot from best to worst by number.

You may have had a number one, but feared voting for that one because it might help elect your worst nightmare.

In the above linked reference to present day Colorado, this option would likely elect one of the two obviously flawed Republican candidates currently seeking to replace one term Democrat Bill Ritter as Governor of Colorado; the one who Republicans insist had to drop out to get ahead of and hopefully away from a scandal. Geez, Louise.

I remember when Colorado lamented the “Californication of Colorado.” Now we have the hitherto unknown “Chicagoization of the Columbine State”. That is the state flower, no reference to the politicized tragedy.

An acquaintance who is an amateur linguist, says the word Republican (with a capital R only) has a likely genesis in transcripts from ancient cuneiform tablets as a word used only by the elite class to mean “flawed”. And as Rummy said, “democracy (small d) is messy”. He might even think the capital D word stems from ancient words for “corrupt”, I have not yet asked him about that.

I was inspired to write this because Options seem in political vogue today.

Ft. Collins, CO is one of several election districts around  the country that already use the Ranked Voter Choice option.

Even though promoted by the Green Party in Ft Collins, and probably every third party everywhere, it has a troublesome future. More competition is not what either of the two political majors seek. Neither of them, each with their own distinct capital letter devoid of any real meaning not of dubious relevance or accuracy are not likely ever to want to support it other than superficially from time to time if forced to talk about it.

Under this system, Republican George Bush the elder would likely have been elected for a seconed term as President in 1992 after votes for the number three vote getter, the part simple genius and part crackpot Ross Perot probably would have gone to him in the split second second round of ranked vote tallying.

So because it does not have a foreseeable benefit for either of the majors, who will nationalize it? Even if one party divined a strategic benefit that party would simultaneously have to occupay the Presidency, have MORE than 60 Senators at least and a bigger majority than the Democrats currently have to have the muscle to do it. But then, why would THEY want to rock the boat?

Our failed political duopoly (failed for us, not for them as individuals) reminds me of that other historically taxpayer enabled and current directly owned and financed duopoly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  They are now twin dupopolies  recognized internationally for their major failings, flaws and corruption.

Fan and Fred, despite the benefits they brought temporarily to our politically charged housing policies, together became the principal vehicle (with many accomplices) through which large political and financial benefits, including to those who own homes, were over promoted.

That was a winning combination until recently. Too many individuals most complicite avoided punishment. Two of those who did, actually paid for it before the meltdown. I knew them and witnessed first hand their corruption.Lo