[EM] Expressing pairwise preferences

[RLSuter at aol.com]

In a message dated Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
writes:

<< I didn't respond to this when originally posted, so here is my comment: 
 Yes, one would not win the Presidency. But if one could win the state, one 
 would then have a block of pledged electors who might prevent a majority 
 winner in the first ballot. And then, as I recall, the electors are freed 
 to vote their consciences, or as they can negotiate. It *could* produce a 
 better election outcome. In 2000, who knows what would have happened?>>

No. There are no second votes by the electoral college, nor
does it meet as a national body. As explained in the 12th
amendment, votes are done in each state and the results
are sealed and sent to the president of the Senate. If no
presidential candidate gets a majority of electoral votes,
the decision goes to the House of Representatives, where
the choice would be between the top three electoral vote
recipients and each state would get a single vote. That
would bias the election process much more in favor of the
party that does best in small population states than it now
does, making it much more likely that the candidate from
that party will become president. Today, that's the Republican
party. The bias in favor of Republicans is now so great
in the Senate that even though Republican senators
represent less than 50% of the population and Democrats
more than 50%, Republicans outnumber Democrats in the
Senate 55-44 (plus one small-state independent who votes
with the Democrats). The bias in favor of Republicans today
in a House vote for president would be even greater. It's one
of many reasons that I argue that the U.S is really not a
democracy, despite all the patriotic rhetoric to to the
contrary.

As for how electors are chosen, states can do it any way
they want. All but two states now do it with winner-take-all
plurality, but they could use any voting method they chose
and could also delegate electors according to vote percentages
of candidates in each state. They could also allow candidates
and their electors to negotiate prior to the electoral college
votes in each state, though about half the states now require
that electors vote for the candidate they are committed to.
Many constitutional scholars don't think such restrictions
are constitutional, but it's never had to be tested.

-Ralph Suter