<HTML><BODY>
<div> from the article:<br>
<br>
<div>> <span class="correction" id="">Natapoff</span> would count popular votes cast for any candidate <br>
</div>
<div>> vote-for-vote for the state's winner: If Florida casts 6 <br>
</div>
<div>> million votes
for all the candidates, its winner should receive</div>
<div>> precisely 6 million
electoral votes plus the popular-vote equivalent <br>
</div>
<div>> of two senatorial
electoral votes--a quarter of the popular vote <br>
</div>
<div>> in the average state, or
about half a million votes now.</div>
<br>
> "This system would empower
voters in poorly contested states, <br>
> who could withhold their vote from
the state's winner by casting <br>
> a blank ballot," <span class="correction" id="">Natapoff</span> wrote. "The
dominant candidate would <br>
> need (acceptance from his opposition) or risk
losing 40 percent <br>
> of the state's electoral votes." It would give 80
million impotent <br>
> voters in those states an immediate impact on
presidential elections. <br>
> It is the only basic change we need or dare
make, he says. <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
My interpretation is that in a 2 candidate race, the voter can <br>
vote 3 ways.<br>
<br>
- candidate A (A-type)<br>
- candidate B (B-type)<br>
- blank (X-type)<br>
<br>
His plan is that the winning candidate gets<br>
(A+B) votes. The X votes are just ignored.<br>
<br>
The X option has the same effect as not voting, so it is reasonable<br>
to assume that voters who want to vote that way just won't vote.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that this system has plurality like disadvantages. <br>
However, it is even 'better' than plurality, in that it results in<br>
1 party domination of each State rather than 2 party domination.<br>
<br>
The <span class="correction" id="">voter's</span> best strategy is<br>
<br>
1) estimate who will win your State (SW)<br>
<br>
2) estimate the top 2 in the national election (NW) and (2nd)<br>
<br>
3) vote:<br>
<br>
if SW is your favorite of the top 2, vote SW<br>
if SW is your least favorite of the top 2, vote blank (or don't vote)<br>
if SW is another candidate, vote SW if SW is better than <span class="correction" id="">expectation</span> of election<br>
Otherwise, vote blank (or don't vote)<br>
<br>
The top 2 clauses are the most likely. If everyone follows the<br>
strategy, all the <span class="correction" id="">SW's</span> will be from top 2.<br>
<br>
The effect is identical to the <span class="correction" id="">NPV</span>. If you are a Democrat<br>
in a Republican State, you will just not vote. If you are a<br>
Republican in a Democrat State, you will just not vote. It<br>
is likely that the State winners would be getting 90%+ of <br>
the votes in their State.<br>
<br>
The likely effect is to keep States locked for one party or <br>
the other. If you haven't voted in the last 10 elections,<br>
would you bother to vote in the current one where your<br>
party has finally obtained a plurality. <br>
<br>
Likely, <span class="correction" id="">alot</span> of people wouldn't so, even a candidate with <br>
60% support in polls in a State wouldn't be the most <br>
likely to win. The candidate from the 'main' party in <br>
the State would have the best chance.<br>
<br>
It possibly would come down to how much use people <br>
make of the blank ballot option. If in the last election <br>
a good chunk of the weaker party's supporters voted blank, <br>
then they have a better chance of being convincing <br>
about who can win.<br>
<br>
However, the likely effect is that the weaker party<br>
in each State would just die like 3rd parties do.<br>
<br>
The attitude of the weaker party's supports would probably<br>
<span class="correction" id="">progress</span> from "I'll vote so that the State does well <br>
and anyway, the votes go to the State winner" to <br>
"my party never has a chance because none of its<br>
supporters vote. If I vote I am just giving votes to<br>
the other party"<br>
<br>
The overall effect is <span class="correction" id="">NPV</span>, but with only supporters<br>
of the dominant party in each State being allowed to<br>
vote. It may not be an entire disaster. The other<br>
party can still campaign there to try to get people<br>
to not vote. This means that it is a <span class="correction" id="">NPV</span> system, it<br>
is just that the threshold for winning is not at 50%.<br>
This means that it isn't very democratic.<br>
<br>
For example, consider a 2 State country. One State<br>
has 10 voters and the other 6.<br>
<br>
Party A controls the 10 State and Party B controls<br>
the 6 State. All voters will vote if they support the<br>
major party in their State and not otherwise.<br>
<br>
Party A will get<br>
10: <span class="correction" id="">Pa10</span><br>
6: 0<br>
<br>
Party B will get<br>
10: 0<br>
6: <span class="correction" id="">Pb6</span> = 6 - <span class="correction" id="">Pa6</span><br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id="">Determining</span> who will win<br>
<br>
(Party A - Party B) is<br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id="">Pa10</span> - (6 - <span class="correction" id="">Pa6</span>)<br>
<br>
=<br>
<br>
(<span class="correction" id="">Pa10</span> + <span class="correction" id="">Pa6</span>) - 6<br>
<br>
=<br>
<br>
(Pa_Total) - 6<br>
<br>
If this is positive, party A will win. If party A has 6 votes<br>
nationally and party B has 10 votes nationally, it will be a tie.<br>
This means that party A can win with only 37.5% of the vote.<br>
It doesn't matter how they are distributed nationally. However, <br>
they would need to maintain reasonable support or risk a State <br>
switching. (which would be <span class="correction" id="">alot</span> less likely than now).<br>
<br>
> Small states cancel each other in a close election. <br>
> The greater
coherence of large states under winner-take-all, <br>
> <span class="correction" id="">Natapoff</span> claims, gives
them much greater national power per <br>
> vote--in proportion to the square
root of their size--than the <br>
> same number of electoral votes in small
states. That, he <br>
> believes, is why senatorial electoral votes have
worked for <br>
> two centuries and are still needed.<br>
<br>
The irony is that since it is not actually winner takes all, <br>
including the Senate votes is unfair to the larger States.<br>
All it does is shift the percentage of the national popular<br>
vote needed for the 2 parties to win.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="clear: both;"><span class="correction" id="">Raphfrk</span><br>
--------------------<br>
Interesting site<br>
"what if anyone could modify the laws"<br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id="">www</span>.<span class="correction" id="">wikocracy</span>.<span class="correction" id="">com</span></div>
<div class="AOLPromoFooter">
<hr style="margin-top:10px;" />
<a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1081283466x1074645346/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaim%2Ecom%2Ffun%2Fmail%2F" target="_blank"><b>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail</b></a> -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.<br />
</div>
</BODY></HTML>