[EM] National Popular Vote & Condorcet

[Dave Ketchum]

Ok, I thought, and still feel, that the topic needed some airing.

With the EC, and without NPV, each state can do their own thing for  
deciding what instruction to give their EC members - and could do  
better than Plurality if they choose.

With NPV there is need for more thought:
      Make all do Plurality?  Simple. but more and more realize that  
voters need more control - and there is need for recognizing that this  
is a national election with more variety of voter opinions as they  
prepare to vote.
      Make all do an agreed better method, such as Condorcet?  Worth  
thought - likely needs a C. Amendment.
      Each state select from an agreed set of methods?  Worth thought,  
but this could inspire 14th Amendment complaints.

Dave Ketchum

On Jul 2, 2009, at 5:43 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:

> On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote:
>
>> Without going into detail, if all states do not use the same  
>> collection
>> method, applying a national counting method that isn't the "lowest  
>> common
>> denominator" method, there would be a violation of the "equal  
>> process"
>> clause of the 14th Amendment. In order to use a ranked-ballot  
>> method, every
>> state would have to provide ranked BALLOTS to be counted.
>>
>> What we have now is we can "roll up" from precinct to district to  
>> state to
>> national only SUMS, because everybody counts ballots the same way.  
>> If state
>> X counts ballots differently than state Y, we can't just "add" X  
>> and Y in
>> the national total without running afoul of the 14th Amendment.
>>
>> Even though "I am not a lawyer", I know some who would bring that up.
>
> The attraction of NPV, in large part (it seems to me) is its  
> simplicity. A simple unilateral action on the part of enough states  
> yields precisely a national plurality election for president, neatly  
> making the Electoral College a dead letter, without the need for a  
> constitutional amendment. (Ignoring the possibility of a challenge  
> to NPV on state compact grounds, or whatever--I think the language  
> could have been written a little better so as to avoid the  
> appearance of a compact, but them I'm not a lawyer either.)
>
> NPV is making slow enough progress as it is that I can't imagine  
> that a competing (more complex) proposal would have any chance at all.
>
> And (sadly, in my view) a straightforward constitutional amendment  
> to establish direct presidential election by any means other than  
> plurality would be doomed to failure by IRV vs Condorcet vs range vs  
> approval infighting. So it's not as if there's another path that  
> would get us something better than NPV. In my opinion.