[EM] Thoughts on electoral college

[Dave Ketchum]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Alex Small wrote:

> First, as to whether proportional allocation would cause more recounts 
> or fewer recounts:
> 
>  
> 
> Proportional allocation would certainly increase the odds that 1 or more 
> states might be close enough for a recount.  A state wouldn't have to be 
> divided 50-50 for that to happen, even a state with a wide margin could 
> have a recount if an electoral vote was in doubt (e.g. 6-3 vs. 5-4).
> 
>  
> 
> HOWEVER, only a single electoral vote would be in play, and the odds of 
> the national contest being decided by a single vote would be lower.
> 
>  
> 
> Next, with proportional allocation, there's the very real possibility 
> that 3rd party candidates could get electoral votes, especially in 
> larger states.  Normally I would be excited to see 3rd party candidates 
> play a larger role, but the US Constitution stipulates that if nobody 
> gets a majority of the electoral votes cast then we go to a Byzantine 
> House of Representatives runoff:  The House of Representatives picks 
> from the top 3 candidates.  Each state delegation gets a single vote, 
> and the winner must get a majority of the states to vote for him.  This 
> led to temporary deadlocks in the 2 previous instances where it happened 
> (1800 and 1824, I believe).  Even worse, the Constitution is silent on 
> whether a state delegation must decide its vote by a majority or a 
> plurality.  e.g. if there are 3 candidates and a state delegation has 9 
> members, how does it vote in the case of a 4-3-2 split?
> 

Here you do have a topic for an amendment.  Might even have the EC meet as 
a body to resolve ties.

BTW - there is nothing demanding that an EC member vote for the candidate 
that got them elected - their original charter was to get smart and vote 
accordingly.  I am in the Independence Party in NY.  In 2000 we had 
prospective EC candidates sign a pledge as to how they would decide who to 
vote for (even if our candidate won the NY vote, he was third party, was 
not likely to be President, and we wanted our electors to promise what to 
do in that case).  When we had enough signers, we made them our slate of 
electors.

>  
> 
> Obviously, the ideal would be to amend the Constitution to either 
> abolish or reform the House runoff (or, even better, go to direct 
> Presidential elections).  But since the subject here is a state-level 
> reform, the next best way to avoid a House runoff would be if a state 
> only divided its electoral votes amongst the top 2 vote-getters in that 
> state.  I know, it isn't ideal.  Well, anything short of abolishing the 
> electoral college won't be ideal, but this is a decent compromise along 
> the way.


FORGET direct Presidential elections until you solve two big problems:
      Sweeten the pot to get Alaska, etc., to sign on.  Does not matter 
what we think of states such as Alaska having 3 EC votes, they own them 
until they let loose.
      Get reasonable as to who is allowed to vote and whether the votes 
get counted.  Florida is just one of many states with trouble; there are 
too many horror stories describable as boxes with "voting machine" on the 
outside, and nothing deserving the label inside.

I DO NOT LIKE restricting to top 2 - I like better minor parties giving 
electors some flexibility such as I described above for Independence.

> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Also, I have suggested in the past that winner-take-all in the EC is 
> basically a Nash equilibrium right now.  In a safe state, the majority 
> will never consent to giving some of the electoral votes to the other 
> side.  (Why would the Democrat majorities in CA, NY, VT, etc. give some 
> of their votes to the GOP?  Why would the GOP majorities in TX, SC, WY, 
> etc. give some of their votes to the Dems?)  In a swing state, most 
> people don't want to lose the clout that comes with having a bloc of 
> votes (at least 3, frequently more) up for grabs?


Back to amendment time.  NY cannot go proportional alone - would be Dems 
giving Reps a present.

Probably could not have a treaty among some red and some blue states - I 
read that treaties among states are verboten.

But an amendment to accomplish the same as a treaty might has possibilities.

> 
> Some would point out that being a Democrat in CA or NY, or a Republican 
> in TX or WY, can be miserable because you're ignored in favor of swing 
> voters.  True as that might be, remember that if your preferred 
> candidate had fewer votes locked down then he'd have to spend even more 
> time compromising with swing voters.  Some might also point out that 
> Maine and Nebraska have district allocation, but those stat es are 
> exceptions.  They have unusual political cultures:  ME recently had a 
> governor with no party affiliation (Angus King, distant relative of 
> novelist Stephen King), and is represented by 2 of the most liberal 
> Republicans in the US Senate.  NB has the country's only non-partisan 
> and unicameral state legislature, and apparently does most of its 
> elections by 2-step runoff instead of party primaries followed by 
> plurality elections.


NY cannot get worse off than present status of:
      Rep candidate does no campaigning and no promising here, for no 
amount of effort would do any good.
      Dem candidate ignores us for opposite reason - we give Dem 
everything we have regardless.

ME and NB should not be treated as an example of the right way.  Among 
their problems, gerrymandering is tempting.

> 
>  
> 

What follows is interesting reading - but I see no future in it.


> Rob Brown's idea of making proportional elections contingent on similar 
> reforms in other states is an interesting one, and may be a way out of 
> the Nash equilibrium.  Rob suggests this amendment:
> 
>  
> 
>  >What if, say, California proposed a law like this :
>  >
>  >"we will have proportional allocation if at least 4 (out of 5) of
>  >nevada, oregon, new mexico, arizona and washington do as well"
>  >
>  >If all those states (well, 4 of them) signed a similar law, they all
>  >would get proportional allocation, if less than that, no one would be
>  >the "sucker".
> 
>  
> 
> I would add Colorado and Texas to the list, and require 5 of 7.  In 
> Colorado there's at least a fighting chance that it will happen.  And 
> Texas normally votes for Republicans, so it would partially compensate 
> for the effect of CA allocating votes proportionally.
> 
>  
> 
> Incidentally, if this were implemented it wouldn't be the first state 
> election law to include provisions contingent on what other states do.  
> The NH statutes dictate that NH shall always have the first primary.  
> (Don't ask me why the Iowa caucus doesn't count, I honestly don't know, 
> but I suspect it's because the caucus is conducted in a manner very 
> different from the primary.)  For proof, see
> 
>  
> 
> http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxiii/653/653-9.htm
> 
>  
> 
> However, as I think of it, proportional allocation would remain 
> unstable, even if it were done contingent on other states 
> participating.  A swing state would always have an incentive to opt out 
> of this system and revert to winner-take-all.  As for safe states 
> (states where one party consistently gets a majority), consider the 
> effects of such a pact:  One party would undoubtedly benefit.  Which 
> party that is would depend on the membership and whatnot, but no doubt 
> one party would get more votes without the pact than it would with the 
> pact.  If the pact includes a state where a majority of the voters 
> prefer the party that loses out on the pact, then that state has an 
> incentive to withdraw.  Even if a single withdrawal doesn't collapse the 
> pact, it would mean that the majority in that state would be able to 
> give all of the states votes to their preferred candidate, rather than 
> just some of the votes.
> 
>  
> 
> Finally, another observation on the politics of proportionally allocated 
> electoral votes:  When the Colorado proposal came up I decided to 
> indulge my curiosity and see what the folks at freerepublic.com thought 
> of it.  They're a very, um, staunch group of conservatives over there.  
> Most of them didn't like it.  Some of it was for the obvious partisan 
> reason, namely that CO went for Bush last time.  Understandable.  I 
> might not agree, but I can see where they're coming from.
> 
> But for some the objection was less obvious.  Some seem to like the 
> Maine and Nebraska system, where a candidate gets one elector for each 
> Congressional district won in that state, and 2 for winning the state 
> overall.  The net result would still be to divide a state's clout, but 
> they seem to be OK with it if it's done in that manner.  I don't know 
> why.  The best I can make out is that the word "proportional" sounds 
> socialist to them or something .
> 

There is enough new thought in this topic to need considerable time 
understanding possible cost and benefit - more time than I expect those at 
freerepublic found time for.

> 
> Alex Small

-- 
  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.