On Oct 18, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Jonathan Lundell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 18, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
I think this would be a better policy than the National Popular Vote
Interstate Compact.
Better in what sense?
In the sense that it will result in a PR Electoral College, rather
than entrenching FPTP as the method to elect the President.
I'm still not getting it. Perhaps I'm not following the mechanism
you're suggesting.
I do agree that there are cases where a proportional EC with free-
agent electors could have a better (in the sense of more democratic)
result than FPTP--say in 1992, where FPTP elects Clinton, but a PR EC
elects Bush1 by combining Bush and Perot electors, or in 2000 Nader
+Gore electors defeat Bush2 (absent SCOTUS interference, anyway).
It's hard to imagine the mechanism, though, especially since without
universal (by state) participation, any significant state not playing
would have a strong edge (unless, I suppose, the compact states agreed
to compensate...wheels within wheels).
The advantage of NPV is that it's simple and doable, even without the
consent of small states currently over-represented in the College.
Does that offset the distinct downside of entrenching FPTP plurality?
Maybe so, unless the alternative is business as usual.
I would also like to see the rules preventing Electors from having a
mind of their own reduced. Maybe also, the compact's electors would
have a pre-meeting to decide how to vote.
I am not sure if that would be constitutional though as they are
supposed to meet in the State capital, it could be claimed that this
implies that they don't meet anywhere else.
In any case, if there were 3-4 parties and nobody had a majority,
there would probably be some negotiations at the party level, so not
meeting up mightn't be an issue.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
