Curt Siffert praises electability while Dr. Cline condemns it.#

Our voting system requires us to judge electability as well as issues. I can guarantee that when I compare myself to Dean, I am probably a better fit to many that will end up voting for Dean. But, it's wiser for them to vote for Dean, because he's got more of a shot of winning than I do - and people find that out by reading press articles such as the one that Dr. Cline criticizes.

Focusing on issues only is an ideal, and an honorable one. But we also have to submit to a voting system. And as soon as an idealistic person submits to a system, they have to submit to the pragmatism that that system requires. And until we have a voting system that can accurately interpret the detailed preferences of a voting population, we have to submit to the requirements of our current voting system: making coalitions before we vote. Relevant to the judgments of making effective coalitions are the data about how electable someone is.

These "politically useless" articles are actually quite useful. In this case, I agree with Dr. Cline's ideal, but in practice he is wrong.

A case of Idealists versus Pragmatists here. I happen to be very much an idealist, but I think I understand the pragmatic point of view. Although I must ask, if we recognize that the voting system is not accurate and does not let us vote for who we want--then perhaps we need a new voting system?

Why isn't that a more important issue? Because the politicians know they would not get elected in a fair system and the media knows they could not milk it for money, so neither pushes it.