If we look at the French presidential two round first-past the post voting system the two highest polling candidates face off in a run-off ballot. Costing 100′a of millions of dollars top conduct the second round ballot.

the same outcome an be achieved by adopting a preferential “instant Run off” voting system. one round same result at half the cost.

The main problem with the first past the post “Highest vote” system part from the fact that the winning canidate does not represent the majority (50% or more) is that minor candidates play what is known as a “spoiler candidate” they are nominated to take votes away from a similar like minded candidate,. They in effect have a negative influence in the outcome of the election. Ros Perot or Ralph Nader.

In a preferential ballot a minor candidate can have a positive influence uin that they can advocate a second choice preference. If no single candidate has a majority vote then the candidate with the least vote is excluded and their votes are redistributed according to the voters nominated order of preference. Yes there are aguments that you could recount each ballot and then chose the candidate that has the overall most support but you would end up with a beige candidate the least most supported option middle of the road. The main ting is that the majority (50% plus one) is represented as opposed to the highest vote.

A better alternative is to have multi-member choices. Elect more then one and divide the outcome proportionally. The single Transferable Vote Proportional Representational voting system aims to do just that. Ideally each electorate elects the same number of candidates (preferably odd in number 5,7, 9). The method of counting and proportioning out the vote is also important with the “Meeks method” being the most accurate and democratic in counting the results.

Being an intellectual–and unashamedly so–I’m also a conservative–and unashamedly so. I don’t, however, deny that those with different politics than I may also be intellectuals. Nevertheless, I find anyone that puts that much faith in a *politician* (no matter what his party) to somehow return us to a new golden age of the intellect, to be incredibly naive.

Frankly, I’m shocked. One would think your understanding of the situation would be somewhat more… nuanced. The simplistic “our guy won, so everything’s going to be great now” attitude occurs in all political denominations, but shouldn’t we intellectuals be above that? Yet, I guess I shouldn’t expect much more from someone who voted for a candidate whose entire platform could be summarized as “Hope! Change! Yes, we can!”

But I mean, really. Either we have to get all of corporate America to get on the frikkin’ bandwagon so the “wage slaves,” myself included, can walk around outside after work without stepping on the rake and bonking ourselves in the forehead (which rhymes with horrid, BTW). Or we have to institute something governmental. Got a problem wid dat, you Libertarian?

The “inconvenience” of having to do math twice a year is more than made up for by being able to play outside with my kids after I get home from work.