When
there are 100 people in a room, and 49 vote one way, and 51 vote
another, it should be a sign that maybe a re-presenting of the pros and
cons of the issue (or candidates) would be a sane thing to do, and then a
re-vote to get more consensus. The popular vote in this election was
so close, 200,000 out of nearly 120,000,000, that it would qualify.
The difference is more than the population of Berkeley, CA, and double the population of Nevada County, California. If the re-vote gets similar results, then a third time, with those results counting, but only if greater than a 1% spread is accomplished.
Otherwise two out of three wins is the final result. Like overtime in football. The cost as we shift to online voting would be minimal. What is the value of a country that knows itself, without doubts, anyways?
The difference is more than the population of Berkeley, CA, and double the population of Nevada County, California. If the re-vote gets similar results, then a third time, with those results counting, but only if greater than a 1% spread is accomplished.
Otherwise two out of three wins is the final result. Like overtime in football. The cost as we shift to online voting would be minimal. What is the value of a country that knows itself, without doubts, anyways?
