http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/natapoff.html
This is one of the WORST ideas I've seen in a long time! In Florida 2000, about 3 million voted for Bush 3 million voted for Gore 97000 voted for Nader Under our current system, the voters who preferred Bush and the voters who preferred Gore had no trouble deciding how to vote, and had no regret after seeing the results of the election. They did the best that they could. The voters who preferred Nader (about a million of them) were faced with a dilemma: vote for their favorite, or vote for the lesser evil? After the election, those who voted for Nader but preferred Gore over Bush were probably kicking themselves for not voting for Gore. (And perhaps some of those who preferred Nader but voted for Gore were sorry they "wasted their vote" on Gore rather than supporting Nader!) So our current Plurality system only causes problems for the minor party voters. Natapoff's idea would have caused _all_ the voters to have heartburn deciding whether to vote. And after the election, most of the Gore and Nader voters would have regretted voting at all, because their votes helped Bush win in the Electoral College! In "safe" states, there would be much incentive for all but the plurality winner's supporters to _not_ vote. (I don't presume to speak for all voters, but I consider it a lot more important to help the right candidate win, than to just increase my state's power in the Electoral College.) So Natapoff's idea would cause anxiety for a lot more voters, and would encourage many to not vote. Sounds like a bad idea to me. Cheers, - Jan ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info