[EM] In defense of the Electoral College (was Re: Making a Bad Thing Worse)

[Dave Ketchum]

ZERO defense here - it is time to be rid of the EC!

First a detail that scares many before they seriously consider change:  The 
EC is packaged such that each 100 voters in state X have as much power as 
120 in CA or NY.
      Could simply multiply state X counts by 120%.
      I am NOT promoting this way of continuing small state advantage - 
simply noting that it is not a reason to give up on needed change.

Those tempted to try to steal a Presidential election now must ply their 
trade in swing states.  With changes such as NPV all states become equally 
attractive targets.  Either way, what has happened many places is a sin 
that should not be tolerated:
      True that errors can happen in any activity.
      But some represent incompetence, deserving more effort to end.
      And some we read about in elections should be recognized as, and 
punished as, the criminal acts which they are.

With the EC it seems standard to do Plurality - a method with weaknesses 
most of us in EM recognize.

Let's do a Constitutional amendment to move up.

I propose Condorcet.  One advantage is that states could move up to use it 
as soon as ready.  States, and even districts within states, could remain 
with Plurality until able to move up - with their votes counted as if they 
did bullet voting with Condorcet.  Approval voting would be permitted the 
same way.
      To clarify, the US would be a single district, while vote counts 
could be published for states and other contained districts, as might be 
useful.

DWK

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:57:50 +0000 Raph Frank wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Steve Eppley <SEppley at alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> 
>>One widespread argument against the EC is that presidential candidates
>>ignore the voters in states where a candidate has a big lead.  I don't
>>accept that.  It seems more reasonable that the candidate with the big lead
>>has it because s/he has NOT ignored the preferences of the voters in that
>>state.
> 
> 
> There are 2 kinds of preference, policy preference and 'pork'
> preferences.  A state which is solidly behind a candidate's policy
> ends up with less 'pork'.
> 
> 
>>Furthermore, the interests of voters in the close states are similar to the
>>interests of the voters supposedly being ignored.
> 
> 
> Only on the policy axis.
> 
> 
>>A national popular vote would exacerbate polarization, since candidates
>>could/would focus on voter turnout of their "base" instead of having to
>>appeal to swing voters in a few close states.
> 
> 
> Hmm, it would make every vote count.
> 
> In a NPV election, the swing voters would still likely hold balance of
> power.  Your base would vote for you (almost) no matter what and you
> need to get the swing voters on side to actually win.
> 
> 
>>A national popular vote would exacerbate the candidates' need for campaign
>>money, since they would not be able to focus on the few states that are
>>close.  That would make them more beholden to wealthy special interests.
> 
> 
> This may be true.  Alternatively, they may just spread the money they
> have more evenly.  NPV would certainly be harder on the candidates.
> 
> 
>>A national popular vote would make for a nightmare when recounting a close
>>election.  The recounting wouldn't be confined to a few close states.
> 
> 
> This is a reasonable issue.
> 
> One option here would be to allocate the EC votes proportionally
> rather than actually using NPV.  This would almost certainly give the
> same result anyway.
> 
> However, most states wouldn't be near the cutoff points.  If a State
> has 10 seats, then it would on average require a 2.5% swing for a
> candidate to get another EC vote.
> 
> 
>>For recounting in close states to affect the outcome, the leader's share of
>>the EC (prior to recounts) would need to be very very close to half of the
>>EC.
> 
> 
> If a State has 10 seats, then it would be 0.2% per seat.
> 
> However, I would agree, in most cases, there wouldn't be an issue, as
> it would require 2 things to happen at once.  First, there would need
> to be an extremely close national election and also an extremely close
> State vote.
-- 
  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.