Melinda Henneberger is a political writer for the Washington Post. In this October 20 column, she explores the meaning of voting for a presidential candidate whose ideas may reflect the voter’s own ideas, in the context of a close presidential election. Henneberger gives clues that she actually agrees with Jill Stein, but questions whether it is rational to vote for a candidate who can’t win.
It is maddening that Henneberger cannot bring herself to talk about alternative voting systems, such as proportional representation, instant-runoff voting, or approval voting. Of course proportional representation cannot apply to an office that elects a single winner, and any mention of proportional representation in the context of an election for the nation’s chief executive would also need to explore parliamentary systems.
But it is a welcome sign that the Post is mentioning minor party presidential candidates this year as much as it has.
1776 was a direct REVOLUTION against the EVIL dangerous parliamentary regimes — having the same party hacks have both legislative and executive powers.
Gee — how EVIL would U.S.A. politics be by having MONSTERS like Prez Nixon or Prez Obama be directly in the Congress with their robot party hack gerrymander gangs ??? Duh.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Proportional representation could apply to the selection of Presidential Electors. Each state gets at least three, and there’s no reason that preferential voting couldn’t be used for Presidential elections so long as the Electoral College is kept.
If you apply PR to the EC you have to fix the part about the House electing the POTUS by the one state, one vote method if no one gets an EC majority.