Re: NYTimes.com Article: Abolish the Electoral College

From: Charlie Strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Sun Aug 29 2004 - 20:30:44 CDT

Great minds think a like I guess ;-) A solution to the electoral
college dillema I suggested two a couple e-mails back is the same as
the one suggested below--though the lines of reasoning are different.

namely: Discard winner take all and assign the electors in proportion
to the popular vote PLUS two electors for the winner of the plurality.
  This retains the small state bias and thus the ability of the
president to pass legislation in the senate but also does not
disenfranchise minority party voters in "safe" states.

Obviously, one does not need actual electors to perform this
mathematical task.

I wonder is this what colorado is proposing or are they dividing all
the electors proportionally without the "bonus" electors?

On Aug 29, 2004, at 4:52 PM, Arnold Urken wrote:

> The electoral college problem is an interesting issue because there are
> so many paradoxes. For example, with direct election, there would be an
> incentive for multiple parties to run. This sets up a high probability
> of producing a tie or a paradox of voting (in which there is no
> transitive consensus. Attempting to compromise, the Century Foundation
> proposed a Bonus Plan discussed at
> http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2001_winter/how_to_reform.html
>
> The winner-take-all rule, even at the district level in the states, is
> the main distorter of the process.
>
> Arnie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-voting-project@afterburner.sonic.net
> [mailto:owner-voting-project@afterburner.sonic.net] On Behalf Of Joseph
> Lorenzo Hall
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 4:13 PM
> To: voting-project@lists.sonic.net
> Subject: Re: [voting-project] NYTimes.com Article: Abolish the
> Electoral
> College
>
> I've never understood the basis for the electoral college... I see
> what you're saying Alan with states rights, but the fact that a
> president can be elected despite the loss of the popular vote (by a
> remarkable margin) and then act ignorant of the fact that they have
> nothing even close to a mandate, seems to point out clearly that
> something is broken. If it's not the electoral college, it must be
> the mechanism that keeps the president accountable to the people,
> right?
>
> In reading the Economist this weekend, they cite a poll that seems to
> show that the president has polarized our nation to an extreme never
> seen before... that is, amongst members of his own party, the
> President enjoys a near 80% level of approval where as amongst members
> of the Democratic party this figure is more like 8%. I'm confident
> that the last number would be even lower still if they polled all
> non-members of the President's party.
>
> One neat site, that might have been mentioned before on this list, is
> the Electoral Vote Predictor which uses polls and statistics to ask,
> "If the election were today (which it is not) how would the electoral
> votes be cast based on a reduction of all available polling data."
> They publish their data so that you can do your own calculations
> (exclude certain polling firms, etc.).
>
> http://www.electoral-vote.com/
>
> Note that common generalizations don't currently seem to be holding
> up... like the fact that California is close to tied instead of being
> heavily pro-Kerry.
>
> -Joe
>
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Aug 31 23:17:19 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 31 2004 - 23:17:23 CDT