[EM] Two concerns about EM's presidential poll

[Steve Eppley]

Hi,

I'm not suggesting abandoning the straw poll in EM about 
presidential candidates.  But I have two concerns:

1. Potential allies for voting method reform may get the 
idea that certain voting methods are popular mainly amongst 
their political opponents, and change from allies to 
obstructionists.  For example, if some Democrat (or Green, 
etc.) trounces Bush in the poll, then Republicans who learn 
of the poll results might become (more) leery of reform.

2. Casual readers may incorrectly get the idea that our 
voting method reform proposals involve scrapping the 
Electoral College.  I wouldn't oppose tweaking the EC to 
remove the bias favoring small states (an amendment which 
will never pass since the small states would veto it).  But 
I don't think the EC should be eliminated because it causes 
a couple of effects that seem positive: (1) It forces 
candidates to compete "broadly" to be the best compromise 
in the states that pre-election polls indicate are closely 
divided, rather than run up their totals where they are 
"favorite sons" and (2) if a recount is needed, it can be 
confined to one or a few states rather than requiring a 
nationwide recount.  The 2nd effect seems especially 
important, after seeing what happened in the 2000 election 
and imagining what a nationwide recount would have 
entailed.
* *
An important question that I believe should be polled 
periodically (hopefully including other people outside EM 
who are knowledgable about voting methods) is to rank the 
various criteria used to compare voting methods for public 
elections.  

I rank criteria justified only by "aesthetic consistency" 
below any having a well-reasoned justification about making 
society better off.  Although an argument can be made that 
some voters may complain or regret when a consistency 
criterion is violated, and that their complaint or regret 
may harm society, I think such arguments can be dismissed 
unless empirical evidence exists that show a particular 
kind of inconsistency causes harm.  Furthermore, it's 
impossible to satisfy all consistency criteria, so without 
empirical evidence about harm we're left to wonder whether 
arguments justifying the various consistency criteria 
cancel each other out.

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)