Centerfield

This is a more serious problem than the rank and file GOP on Main St. are willing to admit.

But at the same time, I don't have any GOP friends or family that feel the party is moving to far to the Right. Sure, they would love to a McCain or Giullani run but they still have no qyualms about these right-wingers. They simply don't see it. And I find it annoying.

Now in 2006, I'm voting for Casey (D-PA) because Santorum is one of these Wing-nuts and again, I'll be accused of being a partisan Dem hiding behind an Independent label. To me, it's a no-brainer again. Not because Casey is a Dem but because he's the more moderate and centrist candidate who appears more where I am on the issues.

When I, a true Independent, explained to these loyal, clueless partisans that Kerry was a no-brainer vote for me because Bush isn't a "real republican that I could take seriously" among other comments, they simply accused me of being equally partisan and blind. But that's not the case and they should realize that. I wasn't overtly for or against Bush or Gore in 2000. I had no real problem with Clinton so part of me was status quo and for Gore and the other part was like "well, let's shake things up a little and get Bush in there."

It didn't take long for me to totally turn on Bush. He's a far cry from his dad who I actually didn't mind.

If moderate republicans are showing up in polls as turning on the Right-Wing, I don't see it around me.

Just a theory, but I wonder if moderates don't turn out for primaries in as large a number as die-hards--this goes for both sides.

Linda Lingle would be an interesting VP choice. Not sure if we've ever had a major party candidate who didn't hail from the mainland.

Ted Stevens is third from the Presidency, does that count?

I agree, but as long as a Con wins the GOP the WH (even if it's only by one vote out of millions cast, or it's the Supreme Court with another of its wacky "this time only" decisions), then I doubt a moderate has a chance at the nomination.

By the way, I hate to be a Presidential Sucession panda here, but I think Denny Hastert is third in line. Yikes!

"Third from the presidency" Blue Jean. Cheney's first from, Hastert is second from.

AR-We've not had a Hawaiian or an Alaskan on any major ticket.

My bad, Mark.

With the interest in helping moderates survive the weeding out process, has anyone considered eliminating the weeding out process altogether? This would guarantee heterodox members of both parties would have a fair chance in the general election, no matter what the members of the respective parties say.

As I've written here before, Condorcet voting would achieve just that. The major difficulty that third-party candidates face is that any voters who vote for him or her forfeits their right to indicate who they prefer among the major party candidates. Since most voters care about exercising that right, the third-party challenger gets few votes. Under Condorcet voting, voters could rank the third-party candidate first and then rank one major party nominee higher or lower than the other (as well as rank one major party nominee first and then rank the third-party candidate higher or lower than the other major party nominee).

One issue that's been raised here in opposition to such a plan is that the people would never accept it. I would advertise it as the following, "Are you content to have other people tell you what your choices are or do you want to decide what your choices are?" Simply put, we've managed to evolve from having a small clique of party insiders in smoke-filled rooms telling everybody else what their choices are to having a somewhat larger group of party activists telling everybody else what their choices are. Why do we need anybody telling the rest of the country what their choices are?

Scott, there's a lot of value to be had in alternative voting mechanisms, but the American people will never entrust their democracy to any process that sounds at all French, like "Concordet" voting.

On a serious note, look at all the problems people in Dade County had filling out the Butterfly Ballot. Now imagine those same people trying to figure out, "so, if I like Bill more than Jane but Jane less than Bob, I put a 1 in box 3 and a 2 in box 5 and a 3 in box 8?"

Scott, there's a lot of value to be had in alternative voting mechanisms, but the American people will never entrust their democracy to any process that sounds at all French, like "Concordet" voting.

I personally would not object to using the term pairwise ranking or majority rule. I only use the term Condorcet because more people are familiar with it than with any alternative.

On a serious note, look at all the problems people in Dade County had filling out the Butterfly Ballot. Now imagine those same people trying to figure out, "so, if I like Bill more than Jane but Jane less than Bob, I put a 1 in box 3 and a 2 in box 5 and a 3 in box 8?"

If I like Bill more than Jane but Jane less than Bob, then I either like Bob more than Bill more than Jane or Bill more than Bob more than Jane. The former would be marked Bob 1, Bill 2, Jane 3; the latter Bill 1, Bob 2, Jane 3. I fail to see anything complex about that. If you want to simplify the voting procedure, we could adopt the old Soviet system of picking up a ballot with one name on it and marching directly to the ballot box to just drop it in.

Works in Cuba!

That's simple to you and to me and to Tully and most anybody else with sufficient education to post here regularly. But not everbody can do that. Seriously the vast majority of voters had no problem with the butterfly ballot because they had the skills and patience to read the directions and follow them. But a substantial minority of voters in Dade (like the old Jews who voted for Pat Buchanan) clearly had some problems following the directions, directions which I personally thought were fairly straightforward.

Isn't this idea of ranking your voting preferences called instant runoff voting?

Dean spoke a lot about and was in favor of implementing.

But, like most common sense yet revolutionary ideas, it'll probably need success at a state level before it gets national consideration.

I don't know if "anybody" could fill out the butterfly ballot, Pat. I know a lot of old Jewish folks who could run circles (intellectually, if not physically) around a lot of young goyim (like me;-). The problem wasn't the voters were too dumb to fill it out, the problem was that Karen was too boneheaded to put Buchanan's name down ballot where it belongs.

It's a combination, Jean. Directions are not either/or, which was my point about the ranked voting system being proposed. Some people have a knack for following directions (geographic or otherwise), others don't. It's not just a stupid/not stupid thing (which I know my post probably came off sounding like), but a matter of patience, attitude, and ability to process information in flow-chart fashion. I'm good at that sort of thing. But I can't paint a picture to save my life. People who can paint tend not to be able to follow flow-chart like stuff. Different mental abilities.

Remember, there were plenty of people who did fill out the butterfly ballot properly. To them, the directions may have seemed perfectly clear.

P.S. Am I ever getting a return e-mail? ;-)

If you're good. Santa's mom has been sick, so Santa's been filling in for her. :-)

the problem was that Karen was too boneheaded to put Buchanan's name down ballot where it belongs.

I know this may be a shock, but in many places you're not allowed to preferentially place names up-ballot or down-ballot, and the order of all candidates for one office is often required to be random. Candidate name placement on the ballot affects results, and it can be illegally discriminatory to either emphasize or bury a candidate by placement, depending on where you are. (This gives election officials migraine headaches.) On the brighter side, the ballot is usually required to be published well ahead of time, so if you pay attention you can make a cheat sheet!

(PS--Who's Karen? Theresa LePore designed the Palm Beach butterfly ballot.)

John:

Isn't this idea of ranking your voting preferences called instant runoff voting?

Instant runoff voting (IRV) is only one method of ranked choice voting. The difference between varying methods of ranked choice voting is mostly in the how the votes are counted (though Condorcet/majority rule/pairwise ranking also differs from IRV in that a voter ranking more than one candidate first would void his/her ballot under IRV but not under Condorcet).

A quick summary of the counting methods. IRV: count the first choice votes. If no candidate has a majority of first choice votes votes, eliminate that candidate and transfer that candidate's voters' votes to each of their highest remaining choices. Repeat until a candidate has a majority of top choices among remaining candidates. Condorcet: For each candidate, compare how s/he would fare and each other candidate in a head-to-head contest (do more voters rank A higher than B or B higher than A). The candidate who defeats every other candidate in a head-to-head matchup wins the election.

Condorcet is superior to IRV by virtually every evaluation criterion. Condorcet creates the lowest feasible incentive for strategic voting among all voting methods. That is, it reduces the likelihood as much as possible that one could improve the outcome of the election (from one's own perspective) by casting a vote that does not reflect one's true preferences. An example from the last election, if someone preferred Lieberman or McCain for president but had a real aversion to Kerry or Bush, a strategic vote would have been to vote for Bush or Kerry despite one's true preferences.

Pat:

But a substantial minority of voters in Dade (like the old Jews who voted for Pat Buchanan)

There are two issues with voter confusion: ballot spoilage and incorrect recording of the voters' intentions. On the first issue, Condorcet would help on several fronts. First, it is incompatible with punch card ballots, so it would eliminate a major factor in voter error. Second, if a voter gove more than one candidate the same rank, the result is just to ignore any pair involving those two candidates, rather voiding the entire ballot and thus ignoring any pair involving one of those candidates and any other candidate. One of the top 10 overvotes in Florida 2000 was every candidate except Bush. Under Condorcet such ballots would have counted as Bush losing every pairing involving himself with every pairing not involving Bush being ignored.

On the second issue, it is conceivable that a voter might put a rank on the wrong line for the intended candidate. But what reason is there to suppose that someone who is able to mark the correct single line on a ballot would be unable to extend that to putting the rankings by the correct lines for multiple candidates?