On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:00:29 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 01:06 AM 4/27/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
Retrieving what you wrote preceding your "It appears.." sentence:
>> However, a reform could be much more sophisticated. As one example:
>>
>> A state could select electors pledged to vote in such a way as to
>> balance out the *national* Electoral College vote toward
>> proportionality. This could mean awarding all the electors, in fact,
>> to a side which did not win in the state, but this would only happen
>> if other states were disproportional in the opposite direction.
>
>>>It appears that the Constitution allows just about any method of
>>>choosing electors that a state wishes to follow: this, indeed, is
>>>the source of the problem, for it led inevitably to all-or-nothing,
>>>since that benefited the majority party in each state.
>>>
>>
>>You did not explain how any state would agree to such destructive action.
>>
Presently, with a couple small state exceptions, each state awards all its
votes to the candidate doing best in that state.
Above you propose one state volunteering to award its votes based on a
formula that could cause the winner to change from the candidate that that
state's voters voted for to a different candidate.
I would not expect any state to volunteer to obey such a formula.
What I see below is mechanics of such volunteering, but nothing convincing
as to what would get a state to agree to do it.
>
> I did not explain "how" since I thought it obvious: whenever a party
> has a clear majority in a state, it is in its interest to assign all
> its electors to that party. This is done by the legislature, i.e., by
> politicians, it does not require any action by the people directly.
> So it is easy for a strong party to put such a thing through. And
> then to remove it requires a majority in the other direction, but
> this time a majority that may be voting against its own interest, and
> it is not only against its own interest, if it is done in a simple
> way, to move back to proportional representation on the college, but
> it is also, because of the status quo with other states, against the
> public interest as well, for it reduces the balancing effect, leaving
> those states assigning all-or-nothing having an edge in influence
> over the final result.
>
> Now, I assumed that Mr. Ketchum was referring to the original
> implementation of such legislation, state-by-state. States *did* do
> this, it is not speculation.
>
> Why would a state, then, take the plunge and reform the system on its
> own? Well, if the proposal were a pledge system, where electors were
> pledged to vote according to a formula that acts to balance the
> overall result toward proportionality, this, under certain
> circumstances, will act to benefit the minority parties. How could
> the minority parties accomplish this against the interest of the
> "majority party?"
>
> The necessary circumstance is that the sum of those voters supporting
> all of the lesser parties, plus those voters affliated with the
> majority party who want to end the inequity without unfairly harming
> their own party, is a plurality. I think there are quite a few states
> in this situation.
>
> But it would take an organized effort, and it would have to be an
> effort that was not, in itself, affiliated with any party at all. The
> effort would have to be, in appearance and in reality, non-political,
> its goal would have to be fairness and nothing else. Not to help this
> or that specific party.
>
> Ahem. Metaparty.beyondpolitics.org is an example of this kind of
> organization. But there might be other possibilities.
>
> Note that the only cirumstance under which this kind of measure would
> harm the major party would be one in which the major party would
> otherwise win against the popular vote. That is rare, and there are
> plenty of people affiliated with major parties who strongly dislike
> winning in such a way. For one thing, ultimately, it tends to
> backfire. But a lot of damage can be done in the meantime.
>
>
>
>>If the electors are to perform as originally intended there is no
>>point to their getting elected by the people - the legislature can
>>appoint those who will meet as a committee and interview prospective
>>candidates. There is nothing in this for electors to campaign
intelligently.
>>
>
> There is nothing in any election law that provides for candidates to
> campaign intelligently....
There is a difference:
A candidate campaigns promising actions if elected - trouble enough,
but there can be hope.
An elector campaigns claiming to know how to select a satisfactory
candidate - making it even more difficult for the voter to sort out
getting the best candidate via picking an elector.
>
> The legislature can do whatever it likes, within the bounds of the
> state and federal constitution. If the measure, which would
> presumably be a constitutional initiative, provided for public
> election of the electors, and that only the names of the electors
> would appear on the ballot, this could not easily be subverted by the
> legislature in a state close to balance between the major parties.
>
> As *I* would draft it, the initiative would specify that the electors
> would appear on the ballot without party or other affiliations. Don't
> you think that they would campaign? They would have the money, those
> likely to support a major party candidate, it would come from the
> national campaigns of those parties, among other sources. But
> independents would, under this system, have a shot at winning,
> whereas now, they have none at all.
>
> Readers should know by now that I consider elections, in themselves,
> to be anti-democratic under most circumstances. Representation should
> be a right, not something to contest others over. Business figured
> out how to do this a long time ago, and, interestingly, the business
> solution is similar to the original intention of the Electoral
> College; but a compromise in the Constitutional Convention led to,
> effectively, representation of the state legislatures on the College,
> not representation of the people. We must remember that democracy was
> a suspect thing at the time of the Convention, and strong
> anti-democratic traditions continued well into the last century, and,
> indeed, to some extent, continue today. And today's institutions are
> still heavily marked by these traditions.
Another detail is that it WAS NOT POSSIBLE for candidates to have the
contact with the voters that is now expected.
>
> It should also be understood that the campaign to reform a state's
> assignment of electors should itself be conducted, in my view,
> democratically. That is, the form of the amendment should not be
> something fixed in advance, but should be created through
> deliberative process with wide participation. My suggestion is just
> that: a suggestion. A good process with wide participation is likely
> to come up with something much better. To me, the key is to begin
> that process, not to immediately start working on a very specific
> proposal. Proposals like mine (and a somewhat similar one which has
> received press attention recently) should only serve as an example of
> what *might* be done, i.e., as a sign that there is light at the end
> of the tunnel, making it worthwhile to explore further.
>
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
>> Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
>> Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
>> If you want peace, work for justice.
>>
>
> And if you want justice, don't just sit there. You will have to act.
> Reading, alone, is not going to cut through the fog that keeps us
disempowered.
>
> But it is my contention that it is not necessary for everyone to pour
> their lives into reform. Collectively, were we organized, it would be
> *easy* to reform the system. So the question boils down to how we can
> organize, in a way that does not fall into the pitfalls that have
> trapped similar efforts in the past. FA/DP is one answer; there may
> be others, but we won't have *anything* if we don't start recognizing
> the real problem instead of tilting at symptoms, no matter how
> outrageous the latter might be. By all means, treat the symptoms, but
> don't neglect the disease itself.
>
> By the way, Mr. Eppley, as to myself, Page House, 1961-1963. Don't
> you wish there were steam tunnels *everywhere*?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
