Breaking News: Preferential Voting is Unconstitutional

[Sam Spade]

Gabu won the final round tie because he had more first preference votes.

That's what I don't like, if I could quote some parts of a message from WMS on this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I actually agree on this.  

In strict constitutional tradition and to limit the power of democracy, I believe that tied races in the Senate should be decided by the regional governors, tied races in the governorship and other smaller regionwide offices should be decided by the senior senator from that region and tied races in the Presidency should be decided by vote of the Senate, with the tiebreaking vote (if necessary) coming from the outgoing (or incoming) VP.

[Keystone Phil]

Personally, we need to stop getting bogged down in technicalities. The bill passed. We are in fantasy elections, not the AG's office.

But this could mean a lot, plus StevenNick and Harry could request a revote since they lost because of the preferential voting system.

I was elected to the Senate due to Pref. Voting, I like it the way it is.

Funny. That same election is why I am so opposed to preferential voting. I wonder why....

Keystone, 63% of the voters strongly opposed you getting in the Senate. That's why you lost. You had more 4th Preference Votes (Or no vote) than everything else combined.

Akno, did I not receive more votes to begin with? Direct popular vote for Senators, in my opinion, is the best way to go.

Yes, you did, although if there hadn't been Preferntial Voting, I would have dropped out, and Nick would have gotten my first preferences, and thus gotten more than you.

Ok well I don't play the "Well I would have done this..." game.

It's not a game, it's realism. You seem to think you would have won using "American" voting, and while based on votes only, that is true, I was pointing out that when other factors are taken into consideration, you would not have won.

Well that is the way I would prefer we vote, Akno - by votes only. I think this whole "Well if your first and second choice doesn't work out, you can always have the person you wanted third beat the current vote leader" idea is ridiculous. One voter, one vote.

My opinion won't change, your opinion probably won't change. We've debated this time and time again, Akno, and we're really just wasting our time. Let's just try to find a way to solve these electoral problems without saying "Back in July, I would have done this..." I honestly don't care. All I said was because of that election, I came out opposed to the system and because of that same election, you now have a favorable feeling towards the system. That's it.

Obviously you would prefer to consider it by votes only and not realism, you win that way.

Anyway, I agree, there's no use debating an election that happened almost half a year ago. Let's get back on topic.

Akno, I'm over the race. I've been over the race since July. I lost. I found the system to be unfair. Now I stand by Democrats, Republicans, Independents and members of every party when I challenge the Preferential voting system. Nothing can go back and change the July results. I can't "win that way." I've actually already won "your" way and I still stand up to the system of voting.

 And I love this "realism." What's realism? Let's say someone votes, goes home, watches the results and their candidate loses. Now they want to go back and say "Ehhhhh I really don't like who I'm stuck with now, can I vote for another candidate besides the one that just lost?" Is that your realism, Akno?

[Akno21]

Personally, we need to stop getting bogged down in technicalities. The bill passed. We are in fantasy elections, not the AG's office.

But this could mean a lot, plus StevenNick and Harry could request a revote since they lost because of the preferential voting system.

I was elected to the Senate due to Pref. Voting, I like it the way it is.

Funny. That same election is why I am so opposed to preferential voting. I wonder why....

Keystone, 63% of the voters strongly opposed you getting in the Senate. That's why you lost. You had more 4th Preference Votes (Or no vote) than everything else combined.

Akno, did I not receive more votes to begin with? Direct popular vote for Senators, in my opinion, is the best way to go.

Yes, you did, although if there hadn't been Preferntial Voting, I would have dropped out, and Nick would have gotten my first preferences, and thus gotten more than you.

Ok well I don't play the "Well I would have done this..." game.

It's not a game, it's realism. You seem to think you would have won using "American" voting, and while based on votes only, that is true, I was pointing out that when other factors are taken into consideration, you would not have won.

Well that is the way I would prefer we vote, Akno - by votes only. I think this whole "Well if your first and second choice doesn't work out, you can always have the person you wanted third beat the current vote leader" idea is ridiculous. One voter, one vote.

My opinion won't change, your opinion probably won't change. We've debated this time and time again, Akno, and we're really just wasting our time. Let's just try to find a way to solve these electoral problems without saying "Back in July, I would have done this..." I honestly don't care. All I said was because of that election, I came out opposed to the system and because of that same election, you now have a favorable feeling towards the system. That's it.

Obviously you would prefer to consider it by votes only and not realism, you win that way.

Anyway, I agree, there's no use debating an election that happened almost half a year ago. Let's get back on topic.

Akno, I'm over the race. I've been over the race since July. I lost. I found the system to be unfair. Now I stand by Democrats, Republicans, Independents and members of every party when I challenge the Preferential voting system. Nothing can go back and change the July results. I can't "win that way." I've actually already won "your" way and I still stand up to the system of voting.

 And I love this "realism." What's realism? Let's say someone votes, goes home, watches the results and their candidate loses. Now they want to go back and say "Ehhhhh I really don't like who I'm stuck with now, can I vote for another candidate besides the one that just lost?" Is that your realism, Akno?

When I said realism, I was talking about your assumption that you would have won had there not been preferntial voting. Realistically, either me or Nick would have dropped out and backed the other, or backed Bullmoose. Thus, you would not have won. But as we have established, it's a moot point.

There are Democrats, Centrists, Republicans, and Independents who support Preferential Voting as well.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The issue King has raised was in fact brought up, debated, and settled at the time the bill was passed.  It was decided that the bill did not contradict the constitution in any way, and therefore did not need to be an amendment.

It was not discussed in the original thread where the Preferential Voting Bill was debated and voted on. The only discussion was when NickG asked if it was an amendment or a bill and StevenNick said a bill. No Senator officially questioned whether it was vaild or not...

The Constitution does not specify the method of counting votes in Senatorial races whether it be first past the post, approval or IRV.

Article II Section 2 Clause 5 might cause problems for the validity of Presidential elections held since we went to IRV for Federal elections so that any of the slates that were listed on the ballot last October might be able to sue, depending on how that clause is interpreted.  If it is interpretted as a ban on runoffs in Presidential elections, then the Senate should be electing the President as no slate got a majority of first preferences.

[StevenNick]

There is nothing in the constitution that contradicts preferential voting voting because, as Ernest pointed out, the constitution does not specify how the elections shall be conducted or how the votes shall be counted.

I personally have no interest in contesting the results of my election.  I would not seek a re-vote were I given the opportunity.  Were a re-vote mandated by the Supreme Court, I would vote for my opponent, Gabu, the winner of last weekend's elections.  I would advise Harry to do the same.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I seem to remember having this discussion when we first decided to institute preferential voting as part of a number of reforms.  There was nothing in the constitution suggesting that we had to use one method of voting or the other; therefore, we determined that that preferential voting could be passed as a normal bill and not a constitutional amendment.

[Platypus]

exactly, and with only a few people in the game, and almost all wanting to run for elections, we need a system that allows for more then two candidates to have a chance at winning.

In Atlasia, this is what we need.

In the ral world there are tonnes of other arguments, but in Atlasia it is impractical NOT to have preferential voting.

[ilikeverin]

Gabu won the final round tie because he had more first preference votes.

That's what I don't like, if I could quote some parts of a message from WMS on this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I actually agree on this. 

In strict constitutional tradition and to limit the power of democracy, I believe that tied races in the Senate should be decided by the regional governors, tied races in the governorship and other smaller regionwide offices should be decided by the senior senator from that region and tied races in the Presidency should be decided by vote of the Senate, with the tiebreaking vote (if necessary) coming from the outgoing (or incoming) VP.

WE DON'T HAVE REGIONAL SENATORS!

*ahem*

However, you'd like the MW constitution because our 3rd tiebreak (after 1st prefs and an instant runoff between only the tied candidates) is a panel of Senators of states representing the Midwest

[minionofmidas]

The issue King has raised was in fact brought up, debated, and settled at the time the bill was passed.  It was decided that the bill did not contradict the constitution in any way, and therefore did not need to be an amendment.

It was not discussed in the original thread where the Preferential Voting Bill was debated and voted on. The only discussion was when NickG asked if it was an amendment or a bill and StevenNick said a bill. No Senator officially questioned whether it was vaild or not...

The Constitution does not specify the method of counting votes in Senatorial races whether it be first past the post, approval or IRV.

Article II Section 2 Clause 5 might cause problems for the validity of Presidential elections held since we went to IRV for Federal elections so that any of the slates that were listed on the ballot last October might be able to sue, depending on how that clause is interpreted.  If it is interpretted as a ban on runoffs in Presidential elections, then the Senate should be electing the President as no slate got a majority of first preferences.

We may indeed have overlooked that clause when we (correctly, otherwise) determined that IRV was not unconstitutional. Or maybe we interpreted it to suit our will, I don't know.
Do you think it's worth a try? Everything to get the current occupant out of the Veep's mansion! No, seriously, I don't.

[Peter]

Article I Section 2 Clause 2

In order for a senator to be elected, a forum member must declare his or her candidacy for the senate seat of the region or district they wish to represent. Members residing in that region or district shall then appoint said candidate or opponent by proper electoral process.

Since "proper electoral process" is undefined in the Constitution, it is safe to assume that we may define it outside the Constitution. Thats what the Preferential Voting Act did.

The Presidential Election is slightly more problematic.

I would prefer we don't ignore the Constitution as somebody suggested; I am still in favour of a Constitutional Convention.

[7,052,770]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

[Colin]

Gabu won the final round tie because he had more first preference votes.

That's what I don't like, if I could quote some parts of a message from WMS on this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I actually agree on this. 

In strict constitutional tradition and to limit the power of democracy, I believe that tied races in the Senate should be decided by the regional governors, tied races in the governorship and other smaller regionwide offices should be decided by the senior senator from that region and tied races in the Presidency should be decided by vote of the Senate, with the tiebreaking vote (if necessary) coming from the outgoing (or incoming) VP.

WE DON'T HAVE REGIONAL SENATORS!

*ahem*

However, you'd like the MW constitution because our 3rd tiebreak (after 1st prefs and an instant runoff between only the tied candidates) is a panel of Senators of states representing the Midwest

Thank you Governor I was just about to say that. Many Districts overlap into several regions, D5 is the most obvious example of this. WE DO NOT HAVE REGIONAL SENATORS thus a governor deciding the winner is not acceptable.

[Nym90]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

[Sam Spade]

Gabu won the final round tie because he had more first preference votes.

That's what I don't like, if I could quote some parts of a message from WMS on this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I actually agree on this. 

In strict constitutional tradition and to limit the power of democracy, I believe that tied races in the Senate should be decided by the regional governors, tied races in the governorship and other smaller regionwide offices should be decided by the senior senator from that region and tied races in the Presidency should be decided by vote of the Senate, with the tiebreaking vote (if necessary) coming from the outgoing (or incoming) VP.

WE DON'T HAVE REGIONAL SENATORS!

*ahem*

However, you'd like the MW constitution because our 3rd tiebreak (after 1st prefs and an instant runoff between only the tied candidates) is a panel of Senators of states representing the Midwest

Thank you Governor I was just about to say that. Many Districts overlap into several regions, D5 is the most obvious example of this. WE DO NOT HAVE REGIONAL SENATORS thus a governor deciding the winner is not acceptable.

Ok, I didn't understand that.  I am still a little new here.

I would still prefer a election system which takes a certain amount power away from the unwashed masses or the majority (like myself at the point) in a very close election.  I do have no problem with preferential voting, however; I just like some limits on democracy.

Gov. I-Like's system should be used at the first level, not at the third, imo, though it is a good idea.

[minionofmidas]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

[Keystone Phil]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

[Akno21]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

It's unfair that a person rejected by 63% of the voters should win.

[Keystone Phil]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

It's unfair that a person rejected by 63% of the voters should win.

And it's still unfair that the person who voters might have overwhelmingly rejected in the first place win the election. We campaign to get the vote of the voters. We don't make up signs that say "District 1 Wants So and So For Senator....that is, if candidate A and B don't have enough votes to win..."

[Jake]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

It's unfair that a person rejected by 63% of the voters should win.

That's what happens here.

Can A 5 36%
Can B 4 28%
Can C 3 22%
Can D 2 14%

Here Candidate A wins with 64% rejecting him.

Say Can D's votes go to Can B & Can C's votes go 1 to A and 2 to B.

Can A 5/6  43%
Can B 4/8  57%

Now Can B wins, but 72% now rejected him.

[Akno21]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

It's unfair that a person rejected by 63% of the voters should win.

And it's still unfair that the person who voters might have overwhelmingly rejected in the first place win the election. We campaign to get the vote of the voters. We don't make up signs that say "District 1 Wants So and So For Senator....that is, if candidate A and B don't have enough votes to win..."

If they overwhelmingly rejected him they would place him last or not place him at all. We campaign to get people's vote, and in many cases hope they will say, "Well, he's not my first choice, but if placing him 2nd will prevent a radical from winning, I'll do it".

Pref. Voting encourages candidacy, without it, we would have less candidates and elections would be less intersting.

[Keystone Phil]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

It's unfair that a person rejected by 63% of the voters should win.

And it's still unfair that the person who voters might have overwhelmingly rejected in the first place win the election. We campaign to get the vote of the voters. We don't make up signs that say "District 1 Wants So and So For Senator....that is, if candidate A and B don't have enough votes to win..."

If they overwhelmingly rejected him they would place him last or not place him at all. We campaign to get people's vote, and in many cases hope they will say, "Well, he's not my first choice, but if placing him 2nd will prevent a radical from winning, I'll do it".

Well nice jab at me, Akno. "...Prevent a radical from winning..." I am not a radical and you were probably one of the most liberal members of the Senate. So much for stopping a radical...

Anyway, it's my opinion that allowing someone to say "Well he's not my first choice but here's my three candidate back up plan..." is unfair.

You then say it encourages people to run? How? If there are three people in a race, how is it encouraging more to join? If anything, people stay away. It's hard, in that situation, to get a majority of the vote so someone will say to themselves "Well there are already three people running and I while I believe I can get the most votes, it's going to be nearly impossible for me to get over 50%."

[Akno21]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

It's unfair that a person rejected by 63% of the voters should win.

And it's still unfair that the person who voters might have overwhelmingly rejected in the first place win the election. We campaign to get the vote of the voters. We don't make up signs that say "District 1 Wants So and So For Senator....that is, if candidate A and B don't have enough votes to win..."

If they overwhelmingly rejected him they would place him last or not place him at all. We campaign to get people's vote, and in many cases hope they will say, "Well, he's not my first choice, but if placing him 2nd will prevent a radical from winning, I'll do it".

Well nice jab at me, Akno. "...Prevent a radical from winning..." I am not a radical and you were probably one of the most liberal members of the Senate. So much for stopping a radical...

Anyway, it's my opinion that allowing someone to say "Well he's not my first choice but here's my three candidate back up plan..." is unfair.

You then say it encourages people to run? How? If there are three people in a race, how is it encouraging more to join? If anything, people stay away. It's hard, in that situation, to get a majority of the vote so someone will say to themselves "Well there are already three people running and I while I believe I can get the most votes, it's going to be nearly impossible for me to get over 50%."

Had you been elected you would have been the third-most Conservative member of the Senate.

I don't see how that is unfair.

It encourages people to run because they know they can at least take a stab at it, without putting the bigger name from their party or at least general side of the spectrum at risk of losing. Running for office is fun, even if you don't win. Did you enjoy running for office, even if you lost? I know I did.

[Keystone Phil]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

It's unfair that a person rejected by 63% of the voters should win.

And it's still unfair that the person who voters might have overwhelmingly rejected in the first place win the election. We campaign to get the vote of the voters. We don't make up signs that say "District 1 Wants So and So For Senator....that is, if candidate A and B don't have enough votes to win..."

If they overwhelmingly rejected him they would place him last or not place him at all. We campaign to get people's vote, and in many cases hope they will say, "Well, he's not my first choice, but if placing him 2nd will prevent a radical from winning, I'll do it".

Well nice jab at me, Akno. "...Prevent a radical from winning..." I am not a radical and you were probably one of the most liberal members of the Senate. So much for stopping a radical...

Anyway, it's my opinion that allowing someone to say "Well he's not my first choice but here's my three candidate back up plan..." is unfair.

You then say it encourages people to run? How? If there are three people in a race, how is it encouraging more to join? If anything, people stay away. It's hard, in that situation, to get a majority of the vote so someone will say to themselves "Well there are already three people running and I while I believe I can get the most votes, it's going to be nearly impossible for me to get over 50%."

Had you been elected you would have been the third-most Conservative member of the Senate.

I don't see how that is unfair.

It encourages people to run because they know they can at least take a stab at it, without putting the bigger name from their party or at least general side of the spectrum at risk of losing. Running for office is fun, even if you don't win. Did you enjoy running for office, even if you lost? I know I did.

Third most conservative out of three conservative Senators. So what's your point...?

People can "take a stab at it" in the popular vote system, too, Akno. Your theory isn't making sense.

Yes I did have fun running for office but let's not change the subject. People don't run for the purpose of "having fun." You don't use the reason "Well atleast they had fun." to defend a voting system.

[Akno21]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

It's unfair that a person rejected by 63% of the voters should win.

And it's still unfair that the person who voters might have overwhelmingly rejected in the first place win the election. We campaign to get the vote of the voters. We don't make up signs that say "District 1 Wants So and So For Senator....that is, if candidate A and B don't have enough votes to win..."

If they overwhelmingly rejected him they would place him last or not place him at all. We campaign to get people's vote, and in many cases hope they will say, "Well, he's not my first choice, but if placing him 2nd will prevent a radical from winning, I'll do it".

Well nice jab at me, Akno. "...Prevent a radical from winning..." I am not a radical and you were probably one of the most liberal members of the Senate. So much for stopping a radical...

Anyway, it's my opinion that allowing someone to say "Well he's not my first choice but here's my three candidate back up plan..." is unfair.

You then say it encourages people to run? How? If there are three people in a race, how is it encouraging more to join? If anything, people stay away. It's hard, in that situation, to get a majority of the vote so someone will say to themselves "Well there are already three people running and I while I believe I can get the most votes, it's going to be nearly impossible for me to get over 50%."

Had you been elected you would have been the third-most Conservative member of the Senate.

I don't see how that is unfair.

It encourages people to run because they know they can at least take a stab at it, without putting the bigger name from their party or at least general side of the spectrum at risk of losing. Running for office is fun, even if you don't win. Did you enjoy running for office, even if you lost? I know I did.

Third most conservative out of three conservative Senators. So what's your point...?

People can "take a stab at it" in the popular vote system, too, Akno. Your theory isn't making sense.

Yes I did have fun running for office but let's not change the subject. People don't run for the purpose of "having fun." You don't use the reason "Well atleast they had fun." to defend a voting system.

But you can't take a stab at it without risking defeat for your general political side in an election using the USA voting system.

Actually, in fantasy elections, I can defend a system by saying that. The point of this is to have fun in politics. It's to act like your idol, barnstorming, proposing bills, GOTV, etc.

[Keystone Phil]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

It's unfair that a person rejected by 63% of the voters should win.

And it's still unfair that the person who voters might have overwhelmingly rejected in the first place win the election. We campaign to get the vote of the voters. We don't make up signs that say "District 1 Wants So and So For Senator....that is, if candidate A and B don't have enough votes to win..."

If they overwhelmingly rejected him they would place him last or not place him at all. We campaign to get people's vote, and in many cases hope they will say, "Well, he's not my first choice, but if placing him 2nd will prevent a radical from winning, I'll do it".

Well nice jab at me, Akno. "...Prevent a radical from winning..." I am not a radical and you were probably one of the most liberal members of the Senate. So much for stopping a radical...

Anyway, it's my opinion that allowing someone to say "Well he's not my first choice but here's my three candidate back up plan..." is unfair.

You then say it encourages people to run? How? If there are three people in a race, how is it encouraging more to join? If anything, people stay away. It's hard, in that situation, to get a majority of the vote so someone will say to themselves "Well there are already three people running and I while I believe I can get the most votes, it's going to be nearly impossible for me to get over 50%."

Had you been elected you would have been the third-most Conservative member of the Senate.

I don't see how that is unfair.

It encourages people to run because they know they can at least take a stab at it, without putting the bigger name from their party or at least general side of the spectrum at risk of losing. Running for office is fun, even if you don't win. Did you enjoy running for office, even if you lost? I know I did.

Third most conservative out of three conservative Senators. So what's your point...?

People can "take a stab at it" in the popular vote system, too, Akno. Your theory isn't making sense.

Yes I did have fun running for office but let's not change the subject. People don't run for the purpose of "having fun." You don't use the reason "Well atleast they had fun." to defend a voting system.

But you can't take a stab at it without risking defeat for your general political side in an election using the USA voting system.

Actually, in fantasy elections, I can defend a system by saying that. The point of this is to have fun in politics. It's to act like your idol, barnstorming, proposing bills, GOTV, etc.

You take risks when you run for office, Akno.

My point is that if you feel the system is unfair, someone shouldn't be telling you "Well it's just for fun."