Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djtestudo
I really don't like the idea of someone who doesn't win their election being appointed to the same position.
If you can't bring a majority of the voters to believe enough in what you have to say to win, you shouldn't win.
|
Interesting point, although I guess I don't think of elections as a sporting event If two candidates are seperated by only a few votes, it doesn't mean that the people are really any less desirous of the second place finisher. Naturally, we have to pick one, so we pick the one with the most. However, you could consider a sports analogy, that being the Wild Card choice for the playoffs, in that the team with the best results that didn't win their division gets awarded the wild card spot.
I had figured an alternative would be for the voter to first vote for the District race, and then have the option to cast a vote for a slate of candidates for the at-large seats. Each party would build their list and it would be much like the way we vote for electors for President.
The advantages of the alternative would be people who are say Republican, and generally want Republican candidates, but say in Obama v. Keyes, would vote for Obama, can vote for the Democrat, but have their vote count as Republican for the at-large seats. (Although, my idea would be only for teh House, not the Senate).
Would this go some way towards addressing your concerns?