[EM] Doing better Presdential electors

[Dave Ketchum]

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:26:19 -0500 Paul Kislanko wrote per:
[EM] Is strategic voting a bad thing, really?

> wclark at xoom.org wrote
> 
> My immediate intuition was that while something like DSV+Plurality would
> still result in two parties being dominant, *which* two parties those
> were
> might be more subject to fluctuation, than with standard plurality.
> 
> Part of the problem with the two-party system (as I see it) is that
> social
> inertia may keep one party in power long after it "should" have been
> replaced by some popular third-party.  I think there's some argument to
> be
> made that the USA should currently have a two-party duopoly consisting
> of
> Greens/Republicans or Democrats/Libertarians (or even
> Greens/Libertarians.)
> 
> --------------------------------------
> 
> It's not the exact vote-counting method that engenders and sustains the
> two-party system in the US federal government - not much would change
> even if every state switched to (pick your favorite plurality
> replacement) as long as the "party in power" controls how elections are
> conducted.
> 
> The only "national" election is that for president, and the president is
> not elected by popular vote, but by "electors" that the voters elect by
> whatever method.
> 
> The egregious "errors" that the electoral college system can lead to are
> not due to using plurality to select the winner in any particular
> elector election (though there certainly might be better ways to select
> them).
> 
> The real problem is that 48 of the 50 states have decided that electors
> run as a "slate" with a "winner take all" result. Two states (I forget
> which two) do NOT do this. 
> 
> Instead, since the electoral college representatives of the states
> represent their 2 senators + 1 * (number of representatives in the
> house) they elect one elector for each House district and only the two
> "statewide" positions are given to the winner of the popular statewide
> vote.
> 
> Whether the slate of delegates is determined by a statewide
> "all-or-none" or a proportional system with electors selected by
> district is entirely up to the individual states.
> 
> The true "electoral reform" movements should be directing their energy
> to have states adopt the more representative version of the current
> electoral college. By this November I strongly suspect that the voters
> in the states with the largest number of "winner take all" procedures
> will be so sick of the two ad campaigns that they'd quickly vote for a
> STATE constitutional amendment to move electoral college delegate
> selection to the district level.
> 

Detail - some states might need constitutional amendments to do better; 
some might not.

If New York, where I live, were to do something that could result in some 
Republican electors from here (rather than all Democratic being 
predictable), there BETTER be a treaty or other agreement with some other 
state(s) to provide for roughly equal chance for more Democratic electors.

BUT - my method is different - a bit more like PR, but doable from the 
vote counts we presently get with Plurality:
      Each candidate, whether party, independent, or write-in, provides an 
ordered slate of electors (in NY, at least, all that is demanded of a 
write-in candidate is a slate of electors).
      If candidate X gets 20% of the state's vote, the first 20% of the 
slate X electors serve.
      For each slate there shall be a short, public, statement each 
elector in the slate shall be sworn to obey.  Obvious statements for major 
parties are simple; minor candidate statements might be more complex 
(debate this when/if it could make a difference).


> That will not change the duopoly system at all, since the party in power
> will still get to draw the districts, but it would make the whole system
> more democratic and less likely to make the US look like a third-world
> country that can't hold a fair election.


Even if what I propose left the duopoly in control, I could be better off 
as a NY resident - presently:
      Democratic candidates do not campaign here or make promises to us - 
they have our electors for free.
      Ditto Republican candidates - be a waste of their resources to try 
to get any NY electors.

BTW  - some dream of doing away with the electoral college and using 
popular vote:
      You need a constitutional amendment - explain how you get the low 
population states to give up their margin (they get the same two 
senatorial electors as NY).
      Think of the fun in the next close election - many states going thru 
what hit Florida in 2000.
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.