[EM] question about electoral college in the USA

[robert bristow-johnson]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] question about electoral college in the USA

From: "Alex Fink" <alexmfink at gmail.com>

Date: Wed, June 22, 2016 9:05 am

To: "rbj at audioimagination.com" <rbj at audioimagination.com>

Cc: "EM" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



> How does a POTUS vote in MA or VT for anyone but the runner-up help the

> winner?
MA and VT are safe blue states.  that is true.  and AZ and LA are safe red states.  so it's likely that voting tactically (the tactic is called "compromising") in those states does not help and you may as well vote for whom you like best.  but suppose
you're in OH or PA or VA or FL?
admittedly the statement is a sorta meme or half-truth: "with FPTP all votes for any candidate other than the runner up are votes for the winner."
the status-quo is that the lead candidate is winning.  not closing the gap on the leader does
nothing to change that status-quo.
i guess the assumption is that the 2nd runner-up is not close enough to overtake the runner-up.  and, to the winner, the gap to the 2nd runner-up is irrelevant in FPTP.
 
> Voting to bring up a 3rd-party's numbers seems to me to be
the only
> substantive vote you could actually make.
well, if the 3rd-party candidate is the runner-up or leader, yes.  otherwise, in FPTP, your vote for the 3rd-party serves only to "send a message", which i believe is also a legitimate function of the election process.
when i
was having these arguments with the anti-IRV crowd in Burlington in 2009 and 2010 (when we repealed IRV and returned to FPTP for the mayoral election), i was also trying to persuade people that, besides the primary function of choosing a candidate for elected office, we, the electorate, are sending
a message to those in government (if the winner just *barely* wins, that is no mandate).
and FPTP increases the price voters pay sometimes to "send a message", that price is "wasting" their vote.  this supports Duverger's Law - voters are punished for sending that
message (bringing up the 3rd-party's numbers) when the candidate that these voters hate the most is elected, and sometimes just barely.  of course the Bush/Gore/Nader thing in Florida in 2000 is a good example.  i have seen bumper stickers defiantly proclaiming "Voted Nader, No
Regrets" and i have personally seen someone X out the "No" on their bumper sticker after the invasion of Iraq was beginning to look like a fiasco.
i think the best way we can both "send a message" yet be protected from acting contrary to our political interests is to
have the Ranked-Choice ballot.  but, as we've discussed here many times (and as Burlington VT voters found out in 2009), IRV is a crappy way to tabulate the ranked ballot for many reason.  And Burlington 2009 was a classic example for why IRV is crappy.
i'm voting in Vermont so i
might very well write Bernie in.  but i wouldn't do that if lived and voted in Ohio.  being an Inspector of Election (in Bernie's ward in Burlington, no less), it will be both interesting *and* a pain in the ass to see how many of these write-ins we get.
(hey Alex, let's do lunch or
something again.)
L8r,


--
r b-j                      rbj at audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20160622/4bc0bc9d/attachment.htm>