[EM] electoral college

[James Green-Armytage]

>
>
>Not sure why Colorado is doing this, 

	Because the electoral college is widely recognized to be an
anti-democratic antique, left over from the time that ordinary people were
not trusted with the decision of electing the president.

>but I doubt many other states will follow 
>suit, since it severely weakens the state's influence.
>
>Imagine a state which has 20 electoral votes, and which has 55% for
>candidate 
>A, and 45% for candidate B.   Under the "winner takes all" system, there
>would 
>be 20 electoral votes for candidate A and 0 for B -- a difference of 20.  
>Under a system where it is proportional, there would be 11 for A and 9
>for 
>B....a difference of two.  The state has now reduced its influence by a
>factor 
>of ten.

	I don't know if you have to look at it from the point of view of the
state. You can also look at it from the point of view of individual
voters. For example, I think it would be frustrating to be a Democratic
voter in South Carolina, always knowing that the state would go red even
if you could vote a thousand times. I guess that the winner-take all gives
more influence to the majority of a state, but a proportional system would
give more influence to its minority. If you're not sure whether you're in
the majority or minority, then perhaps it's about an even split either way.
	Anyway, again, for many voters it isn't about maximizing their influence
as much as it is about trying to get rid of an anti-democratic voting
system.
>
>Why would a state want to diminish it's influence voluntarily, unless all 
>other states agreed to do the same?  All it would do is cause the
>presidential 
>candidates to ignore the state, when they otherwise might be interested
>in 
>courting the votes of it.
>
	Depends on the state. Many states are ignored now because they are safe
states, but they would not be ignored if there was a possibility of
picking up a few extra EV's. People would campaign a lot more in places
like California, New York, and the southeast. And don't hold your breath,
but people might even occasionally show up in some of the midwestern
states like Kansas and Oklahoma, which are totally forsaken now anyway.
	If I lived in a swing state, I would be all for a proportional
allocation. It's just more fair, less unstable. Who really wants to be in
the middle of the kind of craziness that they have in Florida these days?
Not most people, I bet. However, in New York or California, I'd be against
it unless a lot of other states went proportional at the same time,
because it would make things too easy for the Republicans. That's why I
suggested that EV's could be allocated according to the national popular
vote there. And I think it would be quite interesting, if different states
used different tally methods. Maybe some would use plurality, some would
use IRV, some would use approval, and so on... 


my best,
James