Comments on: Left May Split Vermont Senate Vote

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Sat, 14 May 2005 15:21:33 +0000

Richard: Fair point, since Sanders' House seat is an at-large one and thus comparable to a Senate election. It wouldn't hold true, though, for a popular Member in a multi-district state.

By: Richard Winger

Richard Winger — Sat, 14 May 2005 15:18:40 +0000

Your scenario is unrealistic. In 2004 the Vermont vote for US House was Sanders 67.5%, Republican 24.4%, Democratic 7.1%, Liberty Union 1.0%. No Democrat running against Sanders would get anywhere near 32%.

By: wavemaker

wavemaker — Fri, 13 May 2005 11:24:51 +0000

Watch for a local businessman named Richard Tarrant --- if he gets into this, he has the opportunnity to attract republicans and progressives alike. Smart, attractive and very rich. Founder of IDX Corporation, now publicly-owned, with headquarters in Burlington VT and plants around the world.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 12 May 2005 20:25:54 +0000

A lot like what I saw in the U.K. election results on CSPAN: the conservative won the plurality in the precinct, but the combined Labour/Lib Democrat vote was substantially more than what the winner got.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 12 May 2005 20:20:30 +0000

Kent: Yep. That's the main rationale for it, really. It's problematic, as my fictitious example illustrates, from a "fairness" standpoint. But almost all systems that have proportional representation wind up in either extreme chaos or with the tail wagging the dog. Having two rather bland "catch-all" parties is a fair trade, methinks.

By: Kent

Kent — Thu, 12 May 2005 20:18:14 +0000

"Winner-take-all" does have the beneficial effect of providing a strong incentive to build consensus.