Originally Posted by Zukiphile
BP, the "all or nothing" trait isn't a problem -- it's a feature.
The USA was not intended to be a 2 party political system. Unfortunately, popular vote systems encourage the reduction of choices over time by giving incentive to combine forces and gain influence until only the two remain. It doesn't take very long either. We've been saddled with the two choices that we have today since about 1820, with only a few name changes along the way. We've been forced into the least competitive system in the free world.
Forcing an "All and Nothing" vote can also cause a candidate who would LOSE to ANY of the others
, if it were a two way race, to actually WIN.
Think about that. The LEAST popular choice can WIN, and it's because of the "All and Nothing" nature of of system.
Range voting takes nothing away from a truly popular candidate. That candidate will still get more support than any of the TRULY less popular opponents. What it does is give the people a COMPLETE voice and breaks the strangle-hold the two party system has on our options.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.