Suchergebnisse

The much disputed Mexican presidential election of 2006 leads us almost inevitably to debate whether the manner of electing presidents should be changed before the next election. Roberto Madraz of the Institutional Revolutionary Party was clearly out of the running with only 22.7% of the vote, but the National Action Party's Felipe Calderon won by only a narrow margin over Party of the Democratic Revolution candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (36.69% to 36.11%). Further, his victory was marred by charges of fraud. This paper argues that the :"relative majority" rule should be changed. In the absence of a candidate with at least 40% of the vote, a run-off election should be held, the winner of which must receive 50+% of the vote. Other alternatives are discussed as well. Adapted from the source document.

The United States has fallen well behind worldwide trends in presidential elections. Its electoral college regionalizes the contest for the national executive, contrary to a worldwide trend toward direct election. U.S. states continue to select presidential electors via plurality rule, resulting in vulnerability to third‐party "spoilers," even at a time when third‐party voting is on the upswing. The worldwide trend is toward runoffs to guard against spoilers. Only in nomination methods is the United States the trendsetter, as primary elections only recently have been adopted in other countries, mainly in Latin America. Yet the American regionalized and sequential nomination process contrasts with the national primaries preferred elsewhere.