Jonathan Lundell wrote:
All of this would be finessed by the National Popular Vote idea:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
It'd effectively result in a national FPTP plurality election, hardly
ideal, but definitely an improvement.
The Electoral College is, btw, a good example of a case in which an
election method has a profound and obvious effect on the nature of the
campaign. US presidential candidates have no motivation to campaign in
California, New York, Texas, and many other states (they show up for
fundraising events, but that's about it). If California is close, Obama
has surely lost the election, and similarly Texas and McCain. The states
in play vary somewhat over time, but I rather imagine contain a minority
of the electorate.
Could the national popular vote lead to a similar effect, only opposite?
The candidates would have an incentive to visit the cities, because they
could reach many voters in little time; and thus the effect would move
from being biased away from cities (in the large states) to being biased
towards them.
Better might be a weighted vote (but who'd set the weights?).
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
