Dear election methods fans, So, in case anyone hasn't heard, there is a VERY interesting situation in Colorado this fall. On the November ballot there will be an amendment to allocate their 9 electoral votes proportionally rather than via winner-take-all. Not only would this be a substantial boon for the loser in the state (probably Kerry); it could also prove to be a turning point in the struggle to get rid of the electoral college. Actually getting rid of the EC via a federal amendment would be extremely difficult, but gradually undermining it on a state-by-state basis is quite feasible. The remaining question is this: what do we do about heavily-one-sided states like California, New York, Texas, and the rest of the South (excepting Florida)? If California suddenly shifted to a proportionally allocation, with none of the "red" strongholds following suit, then the Democrats might not win another election for the next 20 years. Likewise, if a handful of big southern states like Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia switched over on their own, then the Republicans would be at a huge disadvantage. So, is this measure just going to be for the swing states, or what? Could California strike a deal with a handful of Southern states such that they both switch over at the same time? Sounds pretty unlikely. Here's one idea which I had, though, and you can all tell me if someone has proposed it before: What if California (or Texas, or any other state) wrote it into law that they would award all 55 electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote?? In this proposal there is no drastic disadvantage for the Democrats. There is a slight loss of advantage, but it seems acceptable. And the point is that enough other states would eventually follow suit that the popular vote would be the only real determinant of the election.
Okay. So, the next question is, how do you incorporate alternative voting methods into the proposal? Well, let's keep using California as our example state. Instead of tallying the popular vote according to plurality, they could tally it according to a pairwise method. Of course, most or all of the data coming from other states will not be in ranked form, but nevertheless, California can interpret it as such in its popular vote tally. For example, if some voter in Kansas votes for Bush, then California could interpret this as a vote for Bush>Kerry=Nader=Cobb=Badnarik... etc. Perhaps, if California got really wild and wanted to use a cardinal-weighted pairwise tally, they could interpret the Kansas voter as Bush 100 > Kerry 0 = Nader 0 etc. In the meantime, of course, California could adopt a ranked ballot or a cardinal/ordinal hybrid ballot, and work that into their tally, so that people could vote for third parties in California while still supporting their favorite major party candidate in the pairwise comparison against the other one. And, when other adventurous states adopted a ranked ballot (or a rankings+ratings ballot, or an approval ballot, or something else), California could work this into their nationwide pairwise tally. The different states who adopted this plan would not have to use the same tally method for the national vote. Also, there might be other ways in which the states could differ in the way they count the votes. Well, that's my idea. What do you think? my best, James ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info