![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jrtomhttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/national/17runoff.htm
This is an interesting problem. I hadn't really thought much about the fact that giving people the ability to vote for > 1 person for a position might encourage cooperative campaigning (although I like that) and I certainly hadn't thought about the financing aspect.
The most straightforward solution would be to make campaigns completely publically financed, which is a solution that I kind of like anyway. But given my failure of imagination up to this point, I wonder what else I'm missing.
(The more subtle potential problem that the article doesn't mention is that co-campaigning could be used by one candidate to strengthen a candidate that he hopes to be a spoiler candidate for the other. But I suspect that "spoiling" doesn't work as well in a multiple-vote system.)
This is an interesting problem. I hadn't really thought much about the fact that giving people the ability to vote for > 1 person for a position might encourage cooperative campaigning (although I like that) and I certainly hadn't thought about the financing aspect.
The most straightforward solution would be to make campaigns completely publically financed, which is a solution that I kind of like anyway. But given my failure of imagination up to this point, I wonder what else I'm missing.
(The more subtle potential problem that the article doesn't mention is that co-campaigning could be used by one candidate to strengthen a candidate that he hopes to be a spoiler candidate for the other. But I suspect that "spoiling" doesn't work as well in a multiple-vote system.)
