Herbal Enema wrote:
Yeah, I think that needing a plurality should be necessary.
(for those who don't know, a plurality is when 50% of the people involved in running the show are there -- in a city council of 7 people, they can't hold an official meeting unless 4 of them are there, as that constitutes a plurality. So unless 50%+ voted, none of the votes would count.)
edit: this means that if you really don't want to vote for any of the people running (because they all suck), then your non-vote actually means something -- if enough people see things your way, then the entire district is voided out.
It's either this, or making three options: dem, rep, neither (counts as a negative vote for both dem and rep).
Sorry, but no. You're thinking of a quorum, which would be nice, but isn't doable unless we make voting compulsory like Aus does. A plurality means that no one got over 50% of the vote, so the winner is the person who gets the highest percentage. This happens in elections with more than two options (real options, Nader wasn't even on Oregon's ballot), and honestly I don't think it'd be a good idea either. Imagine an election with three almost equal parties. the split is 33/33/34 in the popular vote. 34 wins by plurality, and yet two thirds of the country don't want him in office. That, and there are now two candidates who will contest results in certain states.
And BDM, I don't see why you're saying that. If you want Kerry in office, it makes more sense to worry about overcoming 130,000 votes (last i checked) than 4,000,000. This time, the electoral system is in your favor. Unless you really don't care about this election and think it needs an overhaul anyway, which it does.