This is G o o g l e's cache of http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2000/msg04661.html as retrieved on 19 Apr 2004 20:41:16 GMT.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:yirjXybjHU0J:csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2000/msg04661.html++%22David+MacClement%22+site:csf.colorado.edu&hl=en

Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: david macclement 
Re: [pf] Gore v Nader; the US Constitution and a Proportional system < < < Date > > > | < < < Thread > > >

Re: [pf] Gore v Nader; the US Constitution and a Proportional system

by David MacClement

07 September 2000 05:48 UTC

>on 9/2/00 12:42 AM, Jeremy Hall at .-.-.@kiwilink.co.nz wrote:
>> Changing our voting system to Proportional Representation in 1996 has
>> seen many more women and minorities elected in New Zealand. ... 
>> I hope the States benefits from this one day.
>
At 19:18 6/9/2000 -0700, Mike Nowak wrote:
>I think this would be an excellent system and it would definitely get rid of
>the "spoiler" argument. I fear though that it would be very hard to get in
>here as the Constitution would have to change and the two parties have no
>interest in changing this aspect of it...
>

**  I've often heard proposals-for-change getting the response: "the
Constitution would have to change"; is a First-Past-the-Post (FPP) election
system actually built into the US Constitution? for President? Congress?

**  And even if it is (where: Main part? Amendments?), what would it take
to make the relevant change?

**  I know quite a lot of Americans regard the Constitution as almost holy.
To the extent that this attitude supports the rights of individuals,
counties and States, that's good, IMO. Power /should/ be widely dispersed.
But regarding it as holy and beyond-tampering-with doesn't accord with the
facts. After all, it got Amended, didn't it?

David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
http://www.emucities.com.au/member/davd/index.html#top
******************************************************

___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
< < < Date > > > | < < < Thread > > > | Home