Here I'll take a different stand. It used to be that I was of a more libertarian bent. However, you know what, I've determined that under most libertarian-esque systems too many people would get screwed. Congratulations Mr. Bush, you've pushed me from being a socially liberal, financially conservative person to a full fledged flaming progressive who wants socially liberal schemes along with financially responsible payment abilities.
I'd want someone who would actually lead the mob rather than follow, i.e., "Here I am my people, come to me" versus "There are my people, I must go to them." I want someone who is going to be able to stand up to unenlightened self-interest and institute the painful changes. Too much has happened for me to believe that what I would love to have happen to actually happen, but there's a lot of places that can change. (If you want an example, removal of the decision that makes corporations a person. GOD WHAT A STUPID USSC decision!)
But to quote from Bruce Baugh's post, but as long as "When it's the final election, you can either help the worst candidate win or the next-worst one, pretty much. That's how first-past-the-post balloting works, and it will continue to work that way until people promote alternative systems for actual use at lower levels - get folks used to proportional representation, ranked preferences, and the like for their towns, counties, and states, and then it'll be ripe for change nationally. Voting for someone who cannot win does not change the system, it only increases the chances that the worst candidate will win."
Okay rant from libertarian turned progressive over.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-09-19 10:55 am (UTC)I'd want someone who would actually lead the mob rather than follow, i.e., "Here I am my people, come to me" versus "There are my people, I must go to them." I want someone who is going to be able to stand up to unenlightened self-interest and institute the painful changes. Too much has happened for me to believe that what I would love to have happen to actually happen, but there's a lot of places that can change. (If you want an example, removal of the decision that makes corporations a person. GOD WHAT A STUPID USSC decision!)
But to quote from Bruce Baugh's post, but as long as "When it's the final election, you can either help the worst candidate win or the next-worst one, pretty much. That's how first-past-the-post balloting works, and it will continue to work that way until people promote alternative systems for actual use at lower levels - get folks used to proportional representation, ranked preferences, and the like for their towns, counties, and states, and then it'll be ripe for change nationally. Voting for someone who cannot win does not change the system, it only increases the chances that the worst candidate will win."
Okay rant from libertarian turned progressive over.