On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote:
Without going into detail, if all states do not use the same
collection
method, applying a national counting method that isn't the "lowest
common
denominator" method, there would be a violation of the "equal process"
clause of the 14th Amendment. In order to use a ranked-ballot
method, every
state would have to provide ranked BALLOTS to be counted.
What we have now is we can "roll up" from precinct to district to
state to
national only SUMS, because everybody counts ballots the same way.
If state
X counts ballots differently than state Y, we can't just "add" X and
Y in
the national total without running afoul of the 14th Amendment.
Even though "I am not a lawyer", I know some who would bring that up.
The attraction of NPV, in large part (it seems to me) is its
simplicity. A simple unilateral action on the part of enough states
yields precisely a national plurality election for president, neatly
making the Electoral College a dead letter, without the need for a
constitutional amendment. (Ignoring the possibility of a challenge to
NPV on state compact grounds, or whatever--I think the language could
have been written a little better so as to avoid the appearance of a
compact, but them I'm not a lawyer either.)
NPV is making slow enough progress as it is that I can't imagine that
a competing (more complex) proposal would have any chance at all.
And (sadly, in my view) a straightforward constitutional amendment to
establish direct presidential election by any means other than
plurality would be doomed to failure by IRV vs Condorcet vs range vs
approval infighting. So it's not as if there's another path that would
get us something better than NPV. In my opinion.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
