[EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Oct 18, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Raph Frank wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Jonathan Lundell  
> <jlundell at pobox.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
>>> I think this would be a better policy than the National Popular Vote
>>> Interstate Compact.
>>
>> Better in what sense?
>
> In the sense that it will result in a PR Electoral College, rather
> than entrenching FPTP as the method to elect the President.

I'm still not getting it. Perhaps I'm not following the mechanism  
you're suggesting.

I do agree that there are cases where a proportional EC with free- 
agent electors could have a better (in the sense of more democratic)  
result than FPTP--say in 1992, where FPTP elects Clinton, but a PR EC  
elects Bush1 by combining Bush and Perot electors, or in 2000 Nader 
+Gore electors defeat Bush2 (absent SCOTUS interference, anyway).

It's hard to imagine the mechanism, though, especially since without  
universal (by state) participation, any significant state not playing  
would have a strong edge (unless, I suppose, the compact states agreed  
to compensate...wheels within wheels).

The advantage of NPV is that it's simple and doable, even without the  
consent of small states currently over-represented in the College.  
Does that offset the distinct downside of entrenching FPTP plurality?  
Maybe so, unless the alternative is business as usual.

>
>
> I would also like to see the rules preventing Electors from having a
> mind of their own reduced.  Maybe also, the compact's electors would
> have a pre-meeting to decide how to vote.
>
> I am not sure if that would be constitutional though as they are
> supposed to meet in the State capital, it could be claimed that this
> implies that they don't meet anywhere else.
>
> In any case, if there were 3-4 parties and nobody had a majority,
> there would probably be some negotiations at the party level, so not
> meeting up mightn't be an issue.