[EM] Electoral College (was Re: Voting by selecting a published ordering)

[Dave Ketchum]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:00:29 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

 > At 01:06 AM 4/27/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
 >

Retrieving what you wrote preceding your "It appears.." sentence:

 >> However, a reform could be much more sophisticated. As one example:
 >>
 >> A state could select electors pledged to vote in such a way as to
 >> balance out the *national* Electoral College vote toward
 >> proportionality. This could mean awarding all the electors, in fact,
 >> to a side which did not win in the state, but this would only happen
 >> if other states were disproportional in the opposite direction.
 >
 >>>It appears that the Constitution allows just about any method of
 >>>choosing electors that a state wishes to follow: this, indeed, is
 >>>the source of the problem, for it led inevitably to all-or-nothing,
 >>>since that benefited the majority party in each state.
 >>>
 >>
 >>You did not explain how any state would agree to such destructive action.
 >>
Presently, with a couple small state exceptions, each state awards all its
votes to the candidate doing best in that state.

Above you propose one state volunteering to award its votes based on a
formula that could cause the winner to change from the candidate that that
state's voters voted for to a different candidate.

I would not expect any state to volunteer to obey such a formula.

What I see below is mechanics of such volunteering, but nothing convincing
as to what would get a state to agree to do it.
 >
 > I did not explain "how" since I thought it obvious: whenever a party
 > has a clear majority in a state, it is in its interest to assign all
 > its electors to that party. This is done by the legislature, i.e., by
 > politicians, it does not require any action by the people directly.
 > So it is easy for a strong party to put such a thing through. And
 > then to remove it requires a majority in the other direction, but
 > this time a majority that may be voting against its own interest, and
 > it is not only against its own interest, if it is done in a simple
 > way, to move back to proportional representation on the college, but
 > it is also, because of the status quo with other states, against the
 > public interest as well, for it reduces the balancing effect, leaving
 > those states assigning all-or-nothing having an edge in influence
 > over the final result.
 >
 > Now, I assumed that Mr. Ketchum was referring to the original
 > implementation of such legislation, state-by-state. States *did* do
 > this, it is not speculation.
 >
 > Why would a state, then, take the plunge and reform the system on its
 > own? Well, if the proposal were a pledge system, where electors were
 > pledged to vote according to a formula that acts to balance the
 > overall result toward proportionality, this, under certain
 > circumstances, will act to benefit the minority parties. How could
 > the minority parties accomplish this against the interest of the
 > "majority party?"
 >
 > The necessary circumstance is that the sum of those voters supporting
 > all of the lesser parties, plus those voters affliated with the
 > majority party who want to end the inequity without unfairly harming
 > their own party, is a plurality. I think there are quite a few states
 > in this situation.
 >
 > But it would take an organized effort, and it would have to be an
 > effort that was not, in itself, affiliated with any party at all. The
 > effort would have to be, in appearance and in reality, non-political,
 > its goal would have to be fairness and nothing else. Not to help this
 > or that specific party.
 >
 > Ahem. Metaparty.beyondpolitics.org is an example of this kind of
 > organization. But there might be other possibilities.
 >
 > Note that the only cirumstance under which this kind of measure would
 > harm the major party would be one in which the major party would
 > otherwise win against the popular vote. That is rare, and there are
 > plenty of people affiliated with major parties who strongly dislike
 > winning in such a way. For one thing, ultimately, it tends to
 > backfire. But a lot of damage can be done in the meantime.
 >
 >
 >
 >>If the electors are to perform as originally intended there is no
 >>point to their getting elected by the people - the legislature can
 >>appoint those who will meet as a committee and interview prospective
 >>candidates.  There is nothing in this for electors to campaign 
intelligently.
 >>
 >
 > There is nothing in any election law that provides for candidates to
 > campaign intelligently....

There is a difference:
       A candidate campaigns promising actions if elected - trouble enough,
but there can be hope.
       An elector campaigns claiming to know how to select a satisfactory
candidate - making it even more difficult for the voter to sort out
getting the best candidate via picking an elector.
 >
 > The legislature can do whatever it likes, within the bounds of the
 > state and federal constitution. If the measure, which would
 > presumably be a constitutional initiative, provided for public
 > election of the electors, and that only the names of the electors
 > would appear on the ballot, this could not easily be subverted by the
 > legislature in a state close to balance between the major parties.
 >
 > As *I* would draft it, the initiative would specify that the electors
 > would appear on the ballot without party or other affiliations. Don't
 > you think that they would campaign? They would have the money, those
 > likely to support a major party candidate, it would come from the
 > national campaigns of those parties, among other sources. But
 > independents would, under this system, have a shot at winning,
 > whereas now, they have none at all.
 >
 > Readers should know by now that I consider elections, in themselves,
 > to be anti-democratic under most circumstances. Representation should
 > be a right, not something to contest others over. Business figured
 > out how to do this a long time ago, and, interestingly, the business
 > solution is similar to the original intention of the Electoral
 > College; but a compromise in the Constitutional Convention led to,
 > effectively, representation of the state legislatures on the College,
 > not representation of the people. We must remember that democracy was
 > a suspect thing at the time of the Convention, and strong
 > anti-democratic traditions continued well into the last century, and,
 > indeed, to some extent, continue today. And today's institutions are
 > still heavily marked by these traditions.

Another detail is that it WAS NOT POSSIBLE for candidates to have the
contact with the voters that is now expected.
 >
 > It should also be understood that the campaign to reform a state's
 > assignment of electors should itself be conducted, in my view,
 > democratically. That is, the form of the amendment should not be
 > something fixed in advance, but should be created through
 > deliberative process with wide participation. My suggestion is just
 > that: a suggestion. A good process with wide participation is likely
 > to come up with something much better. To me, the key is to begin
 > that process, not to immediately start working on a very specific
 > proposal. Proposals like mine (and a somewhat similar one which has
 > received press attention recently) should only serve as an example of
 > what *might* be done, i.e., as a sign that there is light at the end
 > of the tunnel, making it worthwhile to explore further.
 >
 >
 >> 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.
 >>
 >
 > And if you want justice, don't just sit there. You will have to act.
 > Reading, alone, is not going to cut through the fog that keeps us 
disempowered.
 >
 > But it is my contention that it is not necessary for everyone to pour
 > their lives into reform. Collectively, were we organized, it would be
 > *easy* to reform the system. So the question boils down to how we can
 > organize, in a way that does not fall into the pitfalls that have
 > trapped similar efforts in the past. FA/DP is one answer; there may
 > be others, but we won't have *anything* if we don't start recognizing
 > the real problem instead of tilting at symptoms, no matter how
 > outrageous the latter might be. By all means, treat the symptoms, but
 > don't neglect the disease itself.
 >
 > By the way, Mr. Eppley, as to myself, Page House, 1961-1963. Don't
 > you wish there were steam tunnels *everywhere*?

-- 
   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.