Vastly more dangerous. We've already had the course of Earth history changed for the worse by one egotistical candidate who accomplished nothing other than thwarting the will of the American people.
And what about the last 2 presidents who didn't get a 50% majority? Is that undemocratic and dangerous? Besides, you still need a majority of the electoral votes, and without that you're toast. If you don't reach that number then the House Democrats will pick their nominee as president in 2008.
And this man came from the current 2 party system. Explain to me how it would be vastly more dangerous. Plus, show me how Mike Bloomberg is a dangerous egotist.
I thought I was pretty clear above about my feelings on the 2000 election. The will of the American people was thwarted and the world has suffered enormously. The can be little doubt that a Clinton would win a majority in 1996 in a two-person race even though he barely failed to win 50%, 1992 is more questionable. I would still support a run-off election in any case where a candidate failed to get 50% of the vote.
Ben, we have seen. Despite being one of the most powerful and richest men on the planet, Mike Bloomberg has proven to be nothing short of a mensch. But I agree with you on one thing, Instant runoff voting would be one of the greatest things to ever happen to American elections if it was implemented.
I love Mayor Mike...he inherited a fiscal disaster and kept the city running...he just gets it done. If Hilary wins, he will be my next senator when Gov. Spitzer has him replace the departed Jr Senator from NY
To his black SUV that takes him the rest of the way, there was an NYT article about this in July I think.
I used to have great admiration for Nader. Look, I'm not going to get mad at Bloomberg for something he might do in the future, but I really hope he doesn't run.
I hope none, but liking up to this point doesn't mean I'll like him in a year. Hence, "We'll have to see, won't we?"
I'll be honest. Your logic makes no sense to me. You would prefer Hillary Clinton, a woman that has accomplished little to nothing over a successful and likable executive businessman and executive in Michael Bloomberg just because she has a (D) on the back of her name. Oh well, Happy Thanksgiving.
The story was, that instead of walking to his local station (where the express trains do not stop) he gets a ride in a SUV to a station where the express trains stop, and then he takes the express train. link to NYT article 01-August-2007 I don't know the NYC subway well enough to know if this makes sense with your experience -- is the 4 an express and the 6 a local? does the 4 stop at 77th Street? etc. Should I trust the New York Times reporting on this?
Yep, that's accurate. The 4 express makes about 3 stops on the way to City Hall, the 6 local makes about 11 stops to do the same. You can't blame him too much for that, as it probably saves him at least 30 mins. A better display of leadership would be to leg it up to 86th street and catch the 4 express there, which would add all of, oh, 10 minutes to his commute and eliminate the drivers alltogether.
I hope you and your family had a very Happy Thanksgiving, Matt. I consider both to be remarkable, astonishingly successful individuals. Hillary is competing in the regular season and hoping to make it through the playoffs. Bloomberg, if he runs, would be trying to buy a bunch of byes. My main concern, though, is how third party candidates can wreak havoc with our flawed electoral process.