Presidential Press Conference

[12th Doctor]

Mr. President, what do you think of this unholy alliance between your party and the Progressives?  

[12th Doctor]

Mr. President, what would you say to the suggestion that Preferential Voting clearly is disigned to creat super majority control for the Dems and Pros?  And do you aggree with "one man one vote" principle that many Dems seem to hold so dear?

[12th Doctor]

Mr. President, you didn't answer my question.

[12th Doctor]

I am personally in support of preferential voting, as it ensures that the candidate who is elected will have the greatest overall appeal to the most members. It ensures that a candidate cannot get elected with a strong appeal to a minority of voters and a strong disapproval from the majority of voters. It forces candidates to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters. It does not violate the principle of one man one vote, as voters still have only once choice for their first preference, and overall it gives a more accurate view of the overall intentions of the voters by allowing them to state a preference on any potential one-on-one matchup between any two candidates, rather than simply assuming that all candidates who a voter does not vote for are equal in the voter's mind (which is going to be quite often the case).

What do you say to those critics who call this a blatently self-motivated move by Dems and Pros to use the most sacred document of ur forum for political advantage?


And what do you think of Gov. Supersoulty's proposal to eliminate this so-called "VI Amendment" if he were elected?

[12th Doctor]

I have stated my reasons for supporting it. The democratic will of the people will be best upheld by preferential voting. It will ensure that whomever has the broadest support from the majority of the voters will win. I support it because it is the best system to ensure that the overall will of the people is upheld.

I would oppose any effort to eliminate preferential voting.

It would certainly assure dominace for one major party and one that doesn't have enough votes to get anyone elected on it's own, wouldn't it Mr. President?

[12th Doctor]

It would ensure that whichever party has the broadest overall support would win, whomever that may be. And as is always true in politics, there is an ebb and flow in overall party membership and in political views among the people as a whole over time, so the long-range effects of preferential voting cannot be determined.

The individual voters can make up their own mind on their first, second, and third choices, independent of their party affiliation, and the will of the people would be best upheld by a preferential system.

Wasn't the original point of all this, sir, to create mock-up of US government as closely as possible?  Isn't this plan, well, blatantly un-American in it's nature?

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty--

No, the Constitution was created by the Atlas Forum members on its own, and was not in any way, shape, or form intended to mimic that of the US government. Certainly we should include those elements of the US system which are deemed to be right and proper, but I feel that we should consider good ideas from all around the world and not merely follow the US system. Any system, no matter how great, can still be improved upon.

So you honestly believe that Preferential voting is an improvement on the system?  Would you like ot see this done in the US?

[12th Doctor]

I do support preferential voting, yes. As I am not the US President, nor do I hold any other elected position in the US government, my opinion on that matter is of much less relevance. Even if I was, I do not foresee that being proposed as a Constitutional Amendment in the near future.

That being said, it is my opinion that preferential voting is a superior system to the Electoral College or to the popular vote, for the reasons that have been previously stated.

Thank you Mr. President, your none answer told me what I needed to know.