A homeowner in Waukesha for 20 years, Steve is president of the Waukesha Dog Parks Organization and enjoys motorcycling, fishing and staying on top of politics.
Ever since Ross Perot played the spoiler and cost George H. Bush the presidential election to William Clinton, I've marveled that we allow more than two candidates on the final election ballot. Clinton won with 43% of the vote.
I believe that the people deserve an election where the winner wins by greater than 50%. Former President Clinton was elected with less than that, with the popular belief that had Ross Perot not been on the ballot, Bush would have won easily.
A similar situation happened last night. The national spotlight was on upper New York state where a liberal Republican dropped out of the race, yet still received 6% of the vote because she remained on the ballot. The winner of the election won with 49% of the vote. One has to wonder where that 6% would have gone. Had it gone to the conservative challenger who ran as an independent, that person would have won by a clear majority.
A great example of this is the Minnesota gubernatorial election where the wrestler, actor and former Navy Seal Jesse Ventura won in a race where he received only 37% of the vote! So Minnesota ended up with a celebrity who enjoyed playing governor rather than working as one. Sound familiar? Would anyone doubt that had another election between Ventura and the runner up would have been held, that the outcome would have been different? Or the same had Clinton and Bush ran off without Perot?
I believe the same would be true in New York if there were to be a runoff without the Republican drop-out on the ballot. I'm sure it will be spun in ways to suit any political viewer.