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

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 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.

I think an NPV-style gradual change would have a greater chance of 
succeeding than would a constitutional amendment. The constitutional 
amendment requires a supermajority, and would thus be blocked by the 
very same small states that benefit from the current Electoral College.

As for the system of such a compact, we've discussed that earlier. I 
think the idea of basing it on a Condorcet matrix would be a good one. 
That is, states produce their own Condorcet matrices, and then these are 
weighted and added together to produce a national Condorcet matrix, 
which is run through an agreed-upon Condorcet method.

If all states use Plurality, well, the results are as in Plurality. If 
some use Condorcet, those have an advantage, and if some want to use 
cardinal weighted pairwise, they can do so. Yet it's technically 
possible to use any method that produces a social ordering (by 
submitting, if there are n voters and the social ordering is A>B>C, the 
Condorcet matrix corresponding to "n: A>B>C"). While imperfect, and 
possibly worse than Plurality-to-Condorcet or simple Condorcet matrix 
addition, the option would be there, and would be better than nothing.