Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Slater
If 30% of voters want X to win, and 25% want Y to win, but all of the X and Y fans have Z as their close second, why shouldn't Z end up the winner?
|
No reason. It's all a matter of philosophy. Different philosophies work better in different circumstances.
In the current climate, dominated by a man completely unacceptable to most of the voters for whom he isn't their first choice, getting the least unpopular candidate sounds, to most of us, pretty good.
In my experience, while such candidates are common enough, until recently they rarely had enough support to have any chance of winning. The vast majority of support was divided among candidates about whom most people were either excited or luke-warm. In that circumstance, there's an argument for the candidate that the largest group feels enthusiastic about.
Right now we're focused on how much damage one really bad leader can do. I think, though, that history shows really good leaders also having long-lasting effects, and it may be that making sure we get the least objectionable leader lowers the chance of getting a really good one. Bold proposals are often objectionable to a lot of people (often including a lot of people who will come to like the same policies once implemented. Change is scary. That doesn't mean we'd benefit from a system that makes significant policy change less likely).