In a message dated Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax writes: << I didn't respond to this when originally posted, so here is my comment: Yes, one would not win the Presidency. But if one could win the state, one would then have a block of pledged electors who might prevent a majority winner in the first ballot. And then, as I recall, the electors are freed to vote their consciences, or as they can negotiate. It *could* produce a better election outcome. In 2000, who knows what would have happened?>>
No. There are no second votes by the electoral college, nor does it meet as a national body. As explained in the 12th amendment, votes are done in each state and the results are sealed and sent to the president of the Senate. If no presidential candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, the decision goes to the House of Representatives, where the choice would be between the top three electoral vote recipients and each state would get a single vote. That would bias the election process much more in favor of the party that does best in small population states than it now does, making it much more likely that the candidate from that party will become president. Today, that's the Republican party. The bias in favor of Republicans is now so great in the Senate that even though Republican senators represent less than 50% of the population and Democrats more than 50%, Republicans outnumber Democrats in the Senate 55-44 (plus one small-state independent who votes with the Democrats). The bias in favor of Republicans today in a House vote for president would be even greater. It's one of many reasons that I argue that the U.S is really not a democracy, despite all the patriotic rhetoric to to the contrary. As for how electors are chosen, states can do it any way they want. All but two states now do it with winner-take-all plurality, but they could use any voting method they chose and could also delegate electors according to vote percentages of candidates in each state. They could also allow candidates and their electors to negotiate prior to the electoral college votes in each state, though about half the states now require that electors vote for the candidate they are committed to. Many constitutional scholars don't think such restrictions are constitutional, but it's never had to be tested. -Ralph Suter ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
