<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:ent="http://www.purl.org/NET/ENT/1.0/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Curiouser and Curiouser! on elections</title>
    <link>http://matt.blogs.it/</link>
    <description>RSS feed for topic elections</description>
    <copyright>Copyright 2008 Matt Mower. Some rights reserved.</copyright>
    <generator>Squib/0.5.0.382</generator>
    <managingEditor>self@mattmower.com</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>self@mattmower.com</webMaster>
    <language>en-gb</language>
    <item>
      <title>Why vote a ticket?</title>
      <link>http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002861.html</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:28:38 +0100</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I was thinking. In America today you have presidential candidates who take along with them a vice-president. It's interesting to me that you can't vote for the vice-president separately to the president.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In the Roman republic when there was a vote for the two consuls for the year the vote was a popular vote. There wasn't a vote for "senior" and "junior" consul. However the consul who topped the poll was the senior and had greater powers. It seems to me that there is something to like about this system.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;For example if you have a popular candidate with some weakness (perceived or actual) you could imagine a complementary candidate receiving enough of the poll to take the second chair. It could also serve to break down the party barriers since it wouldn't mean an insistence on both President and Vice-President being from the same party.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I wonder how and why America ended up with the present system.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002861.html</guid>
      <ent:cloud ent:href="http://matt.blogs.it/topics/">
      </ent:cloud>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
