Video Player by Kaltura

  Bookmark and Share

0:43

Interview Transcript

Discuss

User_rdaa_01aacb0e7

Misha Vargas on January 22, 2008, 12:37 AM

Thanks Mitt, I agree with your analysis.

But what you see as being safe from extremism, I see as stagnation. Every candidate has to move to the center, to the status quo, to avoid being "out-moderated". If he doesn't, he is dismissed by the media as "unelectable". This results in over-representation of moderates, and puts a lot of barriers up against new ideas.

Outside the options of a multi-party system in which the largest minority can rule, and our system %u2014 in which you're stuck with only two choices, there's a system that allows for a real diversity of candidates and features the compromise and moderation of our own system.

It's called instant-runoff voting.

User_rdaa_01aacb0e7

Misha Vargas on January 22, 2008, 5:37 AM

Thanks Mitt, I agree with your analysis.

But what you see as being safe from extremism, I see as stagnation. Every candidate has to move to the center, to the status quo, to avoid being “out-moderated”. If he doesn’t, he is dismissed by the media as “unelectable”. This results in over-representation of moderates, and puts a lot of barriers up against new ideas.

Outside the options of a multi-party system in which the largest minority can rule, and our system %u2014 in which you’re stuck with only two choices, there’s a system that allows for a real diversity of candidates and features the compromise and moderation of our own system.

It’s called instant-runoff voting.

Default_normal

Gnos Grajab on January 24, 2008, 1:08 PM

Of course you like the two parties. When you want some particular form of legislation that favors you (large tax cuts to the very wealthy, the removal of the inheritance tax yes, inheritance tax, no one get's taxed after their dead) you only have to pay off the two parties. If there were 10 parties, that would cost you a truck load, wouldn't it. Fewer parties result in fewer options for the American people and fewer palms to grease for those with the means.

Default_normal

Gnos Grajab on January 24, 2008, 6:08 PM

Of course you like the two parties. When you want some particular form of legislation that favors you (large tax cuts to the very wealthy, the removal of the inheritance tax yes, inheritance tax, no one get’s taxed after their dead) you only have to pay off the two parties. If there were 10 parties, that would cost you a truck load, wouldn’t it. Fewer parties result in fewer options for the American people and fewer palms to grease for those with the means.


Add a Comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register