Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Dan Bishop]

Raph Frank wrote:

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

In terms of population then, both houses
of the U.S. Congress give extra influence to small states
like Wyoming, whereas the  Senate was created as
it is precisely as a countervailing force to the large
states, in the so-called Great Compromise.  Arguably
the House of Reps should not have the same characteristic.



The effect is pretty small though.
In fact, for the current decade, the effect is completely non-existent, 
as Webster and H-H produce the same apportionment.


Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In terms of population then, both houses
> of the U.S. Congress give extra influence to small states
> like Wyoming, whereas the  Senate was created as
> it is precisely as a countervailing force to the large
> states, in the so-called Great Compromise.  Arguably
> the House of Reps should not have the same characteristic.

The effect is pretty small though.  Also, the automatic one seat rule
also benefits the small states and the Huntington-Hill rule achieves
it automatically, which is elegant.

Another option would be to 'just' increase the House size to 10,000
and that would virtually completely eliminate the small state EC bias.

> (Off-topic: are other people finding the threading of
> electorama messages confusing?  For some time
> it has separated subject from message body and
> sent double copies of the latter.  But no-one
> has mentioned this AFAICT.)

I am using gmail, and some threads are not properly threading, some
posts appear to be the start of a new thread.

Also, I think gmail automatically only shows double mails once.

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Stephen Turner]

(snip)
> However, it's hard to change the Constitution. Maybe it would be more 
> feasible to make reforms that aren't perceived as shifting the balance 
> of power between states. For example,
> 
> * Define the Electoral College apportionment as the Huntington-Hill
>   apportionment of 435 votes between the states, plus two additional
>   votes for each state, plus 3 votes for D.C. (The House could
>   change size later without affecting the presidential election.)
(snip)

There is another issue with the suggestion of using Huntington-Hill
to populate the Electoral College  that perhaps also is worth addressing.
(The author may well have known this but has not said so.)

The Huntington-Hill method (a.k.a. Equal Proportions) is the method
currently used to determine states' apportionments for the U.S. 
House of Representatives.  It is known that the method has a 
built-in bias in favour of small states, just as Greatest Divisors 
(a.k.a. Jefferson) has a bias for large states, whereas the only
divisor method that avoids this is Major Fractions (Webster).

This has been known since work by by Balinski and Young in the 1970s,
and you can read a short article by Young summarising this at:
www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200104/backpage.cfm

Attempting to change the apportiornment method as well, 
rather goes against the strategy described of not
attempting reforms that are perceived as affecting the 
balance of power, but it may still be something to
think about.  

In terms of population then, both houses
of the U.S. Congress give extra influence to small states
like Wyoming, whereas the  Senate was created as
it is precisely as a countervailing force to the large 
states, in the so-called Great Compromise.  Arguably 
the House of Reps should not have the same characteristic.

(Off-topic: are other people finding the threading of 
electorama messages confusing?  For some time
it has separated subject from message body and
sent double copies of the latter.  But no-one 
has mentioned this AFAICT.)



  

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Dan Bishop]

Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:

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?).
Population disparities are often greater /within/ states than between 
them (IIRC, the most extreme ratio is in Texas, with Harris County 
[Houston] vs. Loving County). No state has an electoral college for its 
gubernatorial election, so look at those if you want to know what the 
effect would be on urban vs. rural campaigning.


A lot of people seem to believe that the primary purpose of the EC is to 
give less populous states an advantage, but I disagree. Yes, it's true 
that smaller states have more electoral votes per capita, but:


  1. "Senatorial votes" would be nearly irrelevant today if the House
 district size had been kept at 30,000 as intended.
  2. The winner-take-all system tends to favor large states anyway.

Based on #1, I doubt that the Framers ever really seriously thought 
about what the proper balance of per-state votes and per-population 
votes was. It seems that the more important considerations were:


  1. "that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of
 analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under
 circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious
 combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper
 to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by
 their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely
 to possess the information and discernment requisite to such
 complicated investigations" (Federalist 68).
  2. It allowed a state that limited voting to white male landowners to
 have the same amount of influence as one with universal suffrage.

Neither of which is particularly relevant today.

However, it's hard to change the Constitution. Maybe it would be more 
feasible to make reforms that aren't perceived as shifting the balance 
of power between states. For example,


   * Define the Electoral College apportionment as the Huntington-Hill
 apportionment of 435 votes between the states, plus two additional
 votes for each state, plus 3 votes for D.C. (The House could
 change size later without affecting the presidential election.)
   * However, we'd cut out the middleman (i.e. abolish the office of
 Elector) and just assign electoral votes based on a state's
 popular vote.
   * For conducting the popular vote, states would get a choice between
 Range Voting or a Condorcet ranking.
   * Each state would submit a ranking of candidates based on the
 popular vote, and this would be treated as a ranked ballot. Like:
 55: Obama > McCain > Barr (CA)
 34: McCain > Obama > Barr (TX)
 31: Obama > McCain > Barr (NY)
 etc.

If there are only two candidates (and voters in Range ballot states are 
rational and give a 1.0 to one candidate and 0.0 to the other), this 
will give the same results as the status quo!


Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

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

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> =Potential competition is also relevant. Primaries are unlikely to put
> forward unpopular candidates if a popular loser could potentially
> shoot them in the foot. This would give primaries more incentive to
> pick someone favorable to the entire electorate, rather than the
> faction that chose to participate in their primary.

Well there is some tactics involved.  However, the person who receives
the party's nomination has a massive advantage.  There is a large
number of voters who will vote based purely on the party nomination.
Thus, in order not to split the votes, the rest of the party's
supporters would need to vote for that candidate too.

> =How do the parties nominate individuals in the UK?

It is decided by the central/national party leadership and there is
some consultation with the local party members.

> =Why can't a represent myself with an IRV ballot? It isn't a big
> stretch of the imagination for me to delegate my vote to a program,
> essentially. Or should I be limited to casting a vote for someone who
> can actually win the election?

You could probably vote for someone who has declared how they intend
to transfer.

The idea with Asset is that you are delegating to someone who has a
mind, rather than a set of rules.

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:08 PM, James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raph Frank  > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 12:44 PM
>> Ballot access is pretty open in the UK, and you don't see
>> lots of former party members running.
>
> Thus each
> party has total control of which candidates may use its name or any of its 
> registered descriptions or its registered emblems.

Right.

The point I am trying to make is that even without ballot access laws
(and sore loser laws), the nomination of a major party is critical to
being elected.

Candidates who aren't nominated by their party tend not to bother to
run, as they have little if any hope.

The exception would be an incumbent or someone who can convince the
voters that he actually does have a chance, but they are exceptions
not the rule.

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[James Gilmour]

Raph Frank  > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 12:44 PM
> Ballot access is pretty open in the UK, and you don't see 
> lots of former party members running.

Yes, ballot access is pretty open in the UK for any individual, party or group. 
 However, you should be aware that, since the 1998
legal requirement for the registration of political parties, a candidate can 
use a party description (and optionally, a party
emblem) ONLY if that candidate's nomination paper is counter-signed by the 
registered Nominating Officer of that party.  Thus each
party has total control of which candidates may use its name or any of its 
registered descriptions or its registered emblems.  The
law prevents new parties from registering names, descriptions or emblems that 
could cause confusion with already registered names,
descriptions and emblems.

Candidates who stand as independents have the option of using the description 
"Independent" or of having no description at all.
Such candidates are not permitted to have any emblem on the ballot paper.

James

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1733 - Release Date: 19/10/2008 18:02



Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah. A candidate would run if they were legally allowed to. A candidate
> who isn't a diehard loyalist to his party probably wouldn't see much
> point in stepping down graciously and letting the winner of the
> primary slide into spot 1.5th place.

However, without the party logo beside his name, he will lose (unless
he is exceptional in some way).  Candidates won't bother to run if
they are certain to lose and party supporters won't vote for a
non-party member unless there is a really good reason to.

Ballot access is pretty open in the UK, and you don't see lots of
former party members running.

> anyway, this isn't quite as powerful as pure asset voting. It is like
> contingent vote vs IRV.

You are right, but it isn't like a ranked ballot.  The negotiations
happen at the party level after the number of seats per party are
known.

Under IRV, the transfers happen based on ballot changes.

> I am most near to myself. By any sensible definition, my distance from
> myself is always zero. I know exactly what I want, why can't I be my
> own elector instead of delegating the tasks to people wih increasingly
> vaguer connections to me?
>

So, vote for yourself.  The problem with doing that is that then you
have to make a trip to the State capital to participate in the
negotiations.

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse - parties/primaries

[Dave Ketchum]

This topic has inspired an ocean of words - too many to respond to in 
detaii.  I will respond based on my memory of New York State law - I 
believe close enough to be useful.


Elections in which the voter can only name one candidate, such as FPTP, 
desperately need primaries to help each party submit only one to the 
general election.  They still have headaches from similar candidates 
outside the party.


Elections permitting more complete expression of voter desires, such as 
Range and Condorcet, may still desire primaries, but their need is less 
desperate.


Elections need to support all of:
 Groups of voters taking part as organized parties.
 The most sincere wannabe candidates taking part.
 Keep the size within reason for those running the election.
 Keep the size within reason for understanding and intelligent 
participation by voters.


I am sending out a Wilson-Pakula writeup - shows how desperate parties can 
get to try to control voters.


Let's look at a ballot for governor.  Ten lines, but Tom is on three of them:
 Rep and Dem because voters from those parties petitioned - legal, but 
not likely that party leadership would tolerate (and they do not have to if 
Tom is not a member of their party).
 Tom's - because his friends petitioned him as an independent for a 
few extra votes - thus a better chance for the three counts getting him 
elected governor.


Ten lines could mean ten parties each owning a ballot line for the next 
four years (takes X votes to win such).

 Rep and Dem are established parties, probably get X and thus continue.
 Tom's 'party" is just Tom but if it gets X he has the right to expand 
it into a real party (though he can choose not to).


Note that there are two classes of nomination petitions:
 For primary, signatures must come from party members.  Note that, 
besides petitioning, party leadership can do nominating for primaries.

 Independent for general election takes more because any voter can sign.
 For either the rules must look for a balance:
  Not so easy that the election gets swamped with candidates.
  Not so hard that there are no candidates.

After losing in the primary, can a candidate run independent in the general 
election?  Perhaps, with proper petition signatures.

--
 [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

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Greg Nisbet]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Raph Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because they cannot even run otherwise. I know it isn't the same as a
>> gun to your head, but it wouldn't even occur if they didn't have an
>> artificial monopoly on power.
>
> Do you consider making them legally compulsory (sore loser laws) and
> practically compulsory (via plurality) to be the same thing.

No. I think that primaries would be less important if they were not
legally compulsory. I think they would be used less frequently
>
> When you say making them voluntary, you meant by changing the voting system?

Not necessarily. By eliminating dumb ballot access and sore-loser
laws. What incentive would candidates have to participate in
primaries? If they did it for press coverage alone you might have more
than two primaries that compete for candidates or something.
>
>> There would be more competition at least.
>
> Why?  There would still only be one per major party.

The set of candidates who have a reasonable shot at winning but would
probably lose a primary under the dem or repub system would probably
make their own primary as a way of generating attention.
>
>>> I think you underestimate the value of having a major party nomination
>>> in FPTP.  No matter how it works, the nomination of one of the two
>>> major parties is almost essential to winning.  The only people who
>>> might be able to get around it are previous winners/incumbents.
>>
>> I think you underestimate the ego of candidates. They probably would
>> run if they could.
>
> I think you need to define 'could' in this case.
>
> I mean legally allowed, but you seem to mean practically allowed.

Ah. A candidate would run if they were legally allowed to. A candidate
who isn't a diehard loyalist to his party probably wouldn't see much
point in stepping down graciously and letting the winner of the
primary slide into spot 1.5th place.

>
>> There's the anti-faithless elector law... but that isn't a transfer.
>> It's an insincere vote. You only get one shot at making your vote if
>> you are an elector. That makes it far inferior to even single winner
>> asset voting.
>
> I mean that the process would be

Ok... but you only get one shot. It has a potential to transfer once.
At best that makes it contingent vote.
>
> - Some Green Party members are elected as Electors
> - Greens Electors have balance of power
> - Greens + Republicans make a deal
> - Greens tell their electors to vote Republican
> - Green electors do as 'recommended' by their party leadership

perhaps this belongs on the asset voting thread.

anyway, this isn't quite as powerful as pure asset voting. It is like
contingent vote vs IRV.

cross-apply my asset voting arguments here.
>
>
>> No, it makes strategy the norm.
>
> Not for the voters, you just pick someone who you agree with and is
> good at negotiating.

the good at negotiating part is strategy, it does not matter if you
delegate it. Somewhere along the process strategic voting becomes
vastly more common. It has simply become so normal, so fundamental to
the system that not much is thought of it.
>
>> That would arguably make it easier, in fact incredibly simple, to vote
>> strategically, but do you actually want that to happen?
>
> The ideal voting system is one where you just tell it what you want
> and it picks the highest utility (or honest condorcet winner) and that
> there is no strategic incentive to lie.

They don't exist, sadly.
>
> This isn't possible to do except by a random method.
Yep.
>
>> Trusting voters is part of democracy. Why force them to trust candidates 
>> more?
>
> Well, the more electors that there are, the 'nearer' you can be to the
> elector and thus the more likely you can find someone who is
> trustworthy.

I am most near to myself. By any sensible definition, my distance from
myself is always zero. I know exactly what I want, why can't I be my
own elector instead of delegating the tasks to people wih increasingly
vaguer connections to me?

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because they cannot even run otherwise. I know it isn't the same as a
> gun to your head, but it wouldn't even occur if they didn't have an
> artificial monopoly on power.

Do you consider making them legally compulsory (sore loser laws) and
practically compulsory (via plurality) to be the same thing.

When you say making the voluntary, you meant by changing the voting system?

> There would be more competition at least.

Why?  There would still only be one per major party.

>> I think you underestimate the value of having a major party nomination
>> in FPTP.  No matter how it works, the nomination of one of the two
>> major parties is almost essential to winning.  The only people who
>> might be able to get around it are previous winners/incumbents.
>
> I think you underestimate the ego of candidates. They probably would
> run if they could.

I think you need to define 'could' in this case.

I mean legally allowed, but you seem to mean practically allowed.

> There's the anti-faithless elector law... but that isn't a transfer.
> It's an insincere vote. You only get one shot at making your vote if
> you are an elector. That makes it far inferior to even single winner
> asset voting.

I mean that the process would be

- Some Green Party members are elected as Electors
- Greens Electors have balance of power
- Greens + Republicans make a deal
- Greens tell their electors to vote Republican
- Green electors do as 'recommended' by their party leadership


> No, it makes strategy the norm.

Not for the voters, you just pick someone who you agree with and is
good at negotiating.

> That would arguably make it easier, in fact incredibly simple, to vote
> strategically, but do you actually want that to happen?

The ideal voting system is one where you just tell it what you want
and it picks the highest utility (or honest condorcet winner) and that
there is no strategic incentive to lie.

This isn't possible to do except by a random method.

> Trusting voters is part of democracy. Why force them to trust candidates more?

Well, the more electors that there are, the 'nearer' you can be to the
elector and thus the more likely you can find someone who is
trustworthy.

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Greg Nisbet]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Raph Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Raph Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Well, it depends on how popular the candidate is.  There would be some
>>> candidates who can disregard primary results and some who can't.  It
>>> only works for very popular candidates.  A reasonable number of
>>> candidates wouldn't be able to pull it off.
>>
>> Just because they can't pull it off won't stop them from trying. I
>> think the only reason candidate accept the results of primaries is
>> because they are forced to. The obstacles facing an independent
>> candidate are formidable. They aren't prevented from running for want
>> of trying.
>
> Right, but there is a difference between being prevented due to
> logistical problems and it being illegal.
>
>> What I am saying is, without legal force, primaries would be very
>> different. I was trying to say that my earlier criticism of primaries
>> does not apply to this because it candidates are not coerced into
>> participating in the primary.
>
> Candidates aren't coerced into participating in the primaries, they do
> it because the want the party nomination.

Because they cannot even run otherwise. I know it isn't the same as a
gun to your head, but it wouldn't even occur if they didn't have an
artificial monopoly on power.
>
> If the parties ran their own private primaries, then they candidates
> would still have to participate if they want the nomination.

There would be more competition at least.
>
>> They can run without participating at
>> all in the world absent the add-ons to FPTP.
>
> I think you underestimate the value of having a major party nomination
> in FPTP.  No matter how it works, the nomination of one of the two
> major parties is almost essential to winning.  The only people who
> might be able to get around it are previous winners/incumbents.

I think you underestimate the ego of candidates. They probably would
run if they could.
>
>> I said this because I don't see it accomplishing anything. First of
>> all the current system does not allow transfers, so that is pretty
>> much out of the question. Second I don't think it's going to give so
>> much power to people who weren't elected by name in the first place.
>
> It does allow transfers.  If you were elected as an Elector for the
> Green party, you are perfectly allowed to vote for the Republican
> candidate and can accept instructions based on the outcome of the
> Green-Republican negotiations.  Ofc, in some states, that would be
> illegal.

There's the anti-faithless elector law... but that isn't a transfer.
It's an insincere vote. You only get one shot at making your vote if
you are an elector. That makes it far inferior to even single winner
asset voting.
>
>> I'm not sure that any modfication to asset voting is sufficient to
>> solve your problem. I think the faults that plague IRV plague Asset
>> Voting as well (albeit to a lesser extent because of the restrictions
>> placed on who you can vote for).
>
> Some of the benefits are that the votes are transferred based on
> intelligence/tactics, this makes it potentially more resistant to
> strategy.

No, it makes strategy the norm.
>
> Think of it like declared strategy voting, except you pick a person to
> implement your strategy.

That would arguably make it easier, in fact incredibly simple, to vote
strategically, but do you actually want that to happen?
>
>> Compared to FPTP, it is about as expressive except you haven't a clue
>> how your vote will transfer in the future.
>
> If you vote for one of the expected top-2, you would probably be sure
> that he would keep your vote.

Which would ruin the point of asset-voting to begin with.
>
> Trusting elected officials is part of representative democracy.

Trusting voters is part of democracy. Why force them to trust candidates more?

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Raph Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, it depends on how popular the candidate is.  There would be some
>> candidates who can disregard primary results and some who can't.  It
>> only works for very popular candidates.  A reasonable number of
>> candidates wouldn't be able to pull it off.
>
> Just because they can't pull it off won't stop them from trying. I
> think the only reason candidate accept the results of primaries is
> because they are forced to. The obstacles facing an independent
> candidate are formidable. They aren't prevented from running for want
> of trying.

Right, but there is a difference between being prevented due to
logistical problems and it being illegal.

> What I am saying is, without legal force, primaries would be very
> different. I was trying to say that my earlier criticism of primaries
> does not apply to this because it candidates are not coerced into
> participating in the primary.

Candidates aren't coerced into participating in the primaries, they do
it because the want the party nomination.

If the parties ran their own private primaries, then they candidates
would still have to participate if they want the nomination.

> They can run without participating at
> all in the world absent the add-ons to FPTP.

I think you underestimate the value of having a major party nomination
in FPTP.  No matter how it works, the nomination of one of the two
major parties is almost essential to winning.  The only people who
might be able to get around it are previous winners/incumbents.

> I said this because I don't see it accomplishing anything. First of
> all the current system does not allow transfers, so that is pretty
> much out of the question. Second I don't think it's going to give so
> much power to people who weren't elected by name in the first place.

It does allow transfers.  If you were elected as an Elector for the
Green party, you are perfectly allowed to vote for the Republican
candidate and can accept instructions based on the outcome of the
Green-Republican negotiations.  Ofc, in some states, that would be
illegal.

> I'm not sure that any modfication to asset voting is sufficient to
> solve your problem. I think the faults that plague IRV plague Asset
> Voting as well (albeit to a lesser extent because of the restrictions
> placed on who you can vote for).

Some of the benefits are that the votes are transferred based on
intelligence/tactics, this makes it potentially more resistant to
strategy.

Think of it like declared strategy voting, except you pick a person to
implement your strategy.

> Compared to FPTP, it is about as expressive except you haven't a clue
> how your vote will transfer in the future.

If you vote for one of the expected top-2, you would probably be sure
that he would keep your vote.

Trusting elected officials is part of representative democracy.

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Greg Nisbet]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Raph Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My thoughts on primaries were challenged. Let me explain:
>>
>> Primaries may be the rational response to FPTP. It doesn't matter.
>> Without Draconian sore loser, candidate oppression laws the parties
>> would have no way of stopping popular primary rejects from running.
>
> Well, it depends on how popular the candidate is.  There would be some
> candidates who can disregard primary results and some who can't.  It
> only works for very popular candidates.  A reasonable number of
> candidates wouldn't be able to pull it off.

Just because they can't pull it off won't stop them from trying. I
think the only reason candidate accept the results of primaries is
because they are forced to. The obstacles facing an independent
candidate are formidable. They aren't prevented from running for want
of trying.

>
> You have to convince all the supporters of the party that you are the
> one who is going to win and not the one with your (old) party's label.
>  You also have to convince them that setting aside the primary
> (democratic) result is acceptable and also deflect accusation that you
> will end up splitting the vote.
>
> If 80% of candidates have to accept primary results, then they serve
> some function.
>
>> At the point where they are
>> strictly voluntary vote pooling agreements, I argue they break so much
>> continuity with the current system as not to be regarded as the same
>> thing.
>
> You mean, it would be a completely different system?  I am not sure it
> would be that much different if they were voluntary ... except that
> they possibly wouldn't happen.

What I am saying is, without legal force, primaries would be very
different. I was trying to say that my earlier criticism of primaries
does not apply to this because it candidates are not coerced into
participating in the primary. They can run without participating at
all in the world absent the add-ons to FPTP.
>
>> The Electoral College:
>>
>> Asset voting as a single winner voting
>> method makes no sense.
>
> Sure it does, think of it like IRV but with intelligent vote
> transfers.  This helps solve some of the defects.

I said this because I don't see it accomplishing anything. First of
all the current system does not allow transfers, so that is pretty
much out of the question. Second I don't think it's going to give so
much power to people who weren't elected by name in the first place.
>
> I am not entirely in favour of asset voting in this case, but it isn't
> completely unreasonable.
>
> My problem is that there are conflicts of interest.  For example,
> let's say there are 3 candidates and the supporters have utilities of:
>
> 45: A(100)>B(70)>C(0)
> 10: B>A=C
> 45: C(100)>B(70)>A(0)
>
> B is the condorcet winner.
>
> Both A's and C's supporters would rather have B elected than a 50%
> chance of their favourite being elected (70 utility vs (50/50 chance
> between 100 and 0) ).
>
> However, since the electors are likely to be much more partisan, the
> makeup of the electors is likely to be something like
>
> 45: A(100)>B(10)>C(0)
> 10: B>A=C
> 45: C(100)>B(10)>A(0)
>
> In this instance, both A's and C's electors would be willing to hold
> out.  The end result is that B's supporters must pick one or other of
> them.
>
> One possible tactic for B's supporters would be to flick a coin in
> public and say that they will 100% support the winner of the coin
> toss, unless the loser agrees to support B.
>
> Ofc, that can be countered by A and C committing to their candidate
> publicly too.  Who would break first :p.
>

That is one of the many problems I have with asset voting. In the
single winner case its faults are more obvious.

I'm not sure that any modfication to asset voting is sufficient to
solve your problem. I think the faults that plague IRV plague Asset
Voting as well (albeit to a lesser extent because of the restrictions
placed on who you can vote for).

>> First of all, this violates unrestricted domain. Voters
>> should not have arbitrary limits placed on what they are able to vote
>> for.
>
> What limits?  Surely, the same applies to Congress, you are picking a
> group of people to act on your behalf.

That is correct. I was comparing single winner asset voting to a
competitor like IRV or some Condorcet method. It is definitely more
restrictive than either IRV or Condorcet.

Compared to FPTP, it is about as expressive except you haven't a clue
how your vote will transfer in the future.

>
>> The Senate:
>>
>> The United States' heritage as a federation has no impact whatsoever
>> on the legitimacy of bending the will of the people. See You Can't
>> Have it Both Ways.
>
> The States agreed to it and that only makes sense as part of a federation.
>
>> Two Parties:
>>
>> I think we pretty much agree that the Democrats and Republicans
>> actively prevent competition through silly laws and 

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My thoughts on primaries were challenged. Let me explain:
>
> Primaries may be the rational response to FPTP. It doesn't matter.
> Without Draconian sore loser, candidate oppression laws the parties
> would have no way of stopping popular primary rejects from running.

Well, it depends on how popular the candidate is.  There would be some
candidates who can disregard primary results and some who can't.  It
only works for very popular candidates.  A reasonable number of
candidates wouldn't be able to pull it off.

You have to convince all the supporters of the party that you are the
one who is going to win and not the one with your (old) party's label.
 You also have to convince them that setting aside the primary
(democratic) result is acceptable and also deflect accusation that you
will end up splitting the vote.

If 80% of candidates have to accept primary results, then they serve
some function.

> At the point where they are
> strictly voluntary vote pooling agreements, I argue they break so much
> continuity with the current system as not to be regarded as the same
> thing.

You mean, it would be a completely different system?  I am not sure it
would be that much different if they were voluntary ... except that
they possibly wouldn't happen.

> The Electoral College:
>
> Asset voting as a single winner voting
> method makes no sense.

Sure it does, think of it like IRV but with intelligent vote
transfers.  This helps solve some of the defects.

I am not entirely in favour of asset voting in this case, but it isn't
completely unreasonable.

My problem is that there are conflicts of interest.  For example,
let's say there are 3 candidates and the supporters have utilities of:

45: A(100)>B(70)>C(0)
10: B>A=C
45: C(100)>B(70)>A(0)

B is the condorcet winner.

Both A's and C's supporters would rather have B elected than a 50%
chance of their favourite being elected (70 utility vs (50/50 chance
between 100 and 0) ).

However, since the electors are likely to be much more partisan, the
makeup of the electors is likely to be something like

45: A(100)>B(10)>C(0)
10: B>A=C
45: C(100)>B(10)>A(0)

In this instance, both A's and C's electors would be willing to hold
out.  The end result is that B's supporters must pick one or other of
them.

One possible tactic for B's supporters would be to flick a coin in
public and say that they will 100% support the winner of the coin
toss, unless the loser agrees to support B.

Ofc, that can be countered by A and C committing to their candidate
publicly too.  Who would break first :p.

> First of all, this violates unrestricted domain. Voters
> should not have arbitrary limits placed on what they are able to vote
> for.

What limits?  Surely, the same applies to Congress, you are picking a
group of people to act on your behalf.

> The Senate:
>
> The United States' heritage as a federation has no impact whatsoever
> on the legitimacy of bending the will of the people. See You Can't
> Have it Both Ways.

The States agreed to it and that only makes sense as part of a federation.

> Two Parties:
>
> I think we pretty much agree that the Democrats and Republicans
> actively prevent competition through silly laws and their perpetual
> monopoly on power. I say monopoly because they are both relatively
> centrist. At least that is the impression I get.

There is an argument that this is a natural result of the 2 party
system.  If a party keeps losing, it moves towards the centre to pick
up more votes.  The other party then starts to lose, so it moves too.
In the end, they are very close to each other.

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:14:29 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


How do we measure 'sincere'?  In most places in the US N backers place a
candidate on a party primary ballot, and N2 (usually a larger number)
directly on the general election ballot.  Also voters can usually vote for
others via write-in.  N and N2 NEED to be based on the number of potential
nominators and getting a 'reasonable' quantity of candidates.



Maybe the best plan would be to say that the X candidates who receive
the most signatures are placed on the ballot.  There might also be a
minimum number of signatures allowed.


I said to have X as a goal, but making it a rigid requirement has problems:
 Can include candidates with unreasonably weak 'sincerity'.
 Can exclude truly 'sincere' candidates (perhaps a limit somewhere, 
but making N large enough can make excess candidates difficult).
 Note that having ONE candidate for a primary is reasonable - even one 
for a general election can be adequate, given one GOOD one.


Probably the 2 major parties would be exempted (for practical reasons).


This makes no sense, though the N could, and probably should, be based on 
party membership.


Also, write-ins should be allowed.

--
 [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

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:33:13 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


In FPTP parties NEED primaries - a party cannot afford to divide its
members' votes among multiple candidates.



Well, in the UK, the party leadership decides who the candidates are.
Ministers are generally assigned to safe seats for example.



A DISASTER!  Mechanics become difficult.  Voters cannot learn enough of all
to sort them out.  Etc.
   A party with sufficient voters can reasonably nominate a candidate.
   Makes sense for a reasonable sized group of voters to nominate a
candidate without formally getting involved in parties for this.

As to losers - they chose to try for party backing and got rejected - not
the same as someone who only got approval outside the parties.



Well, there is a balance between having hundreds of candidates and
having only two.

The ballot access laws should allow sincere candidates to stand.

How do we measure 'sincere'?  In most places in the US N backers place a 
candidate on a party primary ballot, and N2 (usually a larger number) 
directly on the general election ballot.  Also voters can usually vote for 
others via write-in.  N and N2 NEED to be based on the number of potential 
nominators and getting a 'reasonable' quantity of candidates.
 Party leadership may also place candidates on the primary ballot (no 
need for primary election if only one candidate, though voters can demand a 
primary to provide for possible write-ins).



Intent is to prevent large states from swamping small states.

Having two houses is a standard thought - single houses too easily wander
into stupid thoughts.



Right, and also, it is recommended that they are elected in different
manners.  If both Houses use the same electorate and method, then they
are copies of each other.

--
 [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

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In FPTP parties NEED primaries - a party cannot afford to divide its
> members' votes among multiple candidates.

Well, in the UK, the party leadership decides who the candidates are.
Ministers are generally assigned to safe seats for example.

> A DISASTER!  Mechanics become difficult.  Voters cannot learn enough of all
> to sort them out.  Etc.
> A party with sufficient voters can reasonably nominate a candidate.
> Makes sense for a reasonable sized group of voters to nominate a
> candidate without formally getting involved in parties for this.
>
> As to losers - they chose to try for party backing and got rejected - not
> the same as someone who only got approval outside the parties.

Well, there is a balance between having hundreds of candidates and
having only two.

The ballot access laws should allow sincere candidates to stand.

> Intent is to prevent large states from swamping small states.
>
> Having two houses is a standard thought - single houses too easily wander
> into stupid thoughts.

Right, and also, it is recommended that they are elected in different
manners.  If both Houses use the same electorate and method, then they
are copies of each other.

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Jonathan Lundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
> I'm still not getting it. Perhaps I'm not following the mechanism you're
> suggesting.

I meant if they actually managed PR, but yeah, it is hard to come up
with a specific compact that doesn't have defection incentives.

> I do agree that there are cases where a proportional EC with free-agent
> electors could have a better (in the sense of more democratic) result than
> FPTP--say in 1992, where FPTP elects Clinton, but a PR EC elects Bush1 by
> combining Bush and Perot electors, or in 2000 Nader+Gore electors defeat
> Bush2 (absent SCOTUS interference, anyway).

Yeah, that is what I was thinking of, it allows a majority to be
formed if the plurality winner doesn't have a majority.

It also allows support to shift over time.

> It's hard to imagine the mechanism, though, especially since without
> universal (by state) participation, any significant state not playing would
> have a strong edge (unless, I suppose, the compact states agreed to
> compensate...wheels within wheels).

One option would be to assign 80% of the seats in each compact State
by PR based on say PR-STV.

The remaining seats would be assigned using d'Hondt over the whole
compact, by party, but would include seats obtained by the parties in
non-compact States.  This would mean that if a party loses out due to
States existing outside the compact, there is a pool of seats
available to rebalance things.  Also, it would cancel out the effects
of non-compact States, only votes within the compact would actually
matter.

Ofc, the non-compact States might decide not to say who won until the
last minute, so it still has problems.

>
> The advantage of NPV is that it's simple and doable, even without the
> consent of small states currently over-represented in the College. Does that
> offset the distinct downside of entrenching FPTP plurality? Maybe so, unless
> the alternative is business as usual.

Yeah, that is pretty reasonable.  If PR isn't possible, my next
favourite would be that the NPV used approval voting (or at least
allowed states to decide to use approval).

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Dave Ketchum]

Multiple candidates from a constituency?  I assume NOT for this post - that 
is a major topic.


Plurality/FPTP as the election method?  That is what we have in the US, 
needs replacing and I will note some of the reasons below.


Approval as a replacement election method?  Simple, but unable to provide 
for Best/Soso/Worst voting.


IRV as a replacement election method?  Better, but too enthused about 
electing other than who voters like best.


Range as a replacement election method?  Better, and its ratings sound 
great until you try to use them.


Condorcet as a replacement election method?  Competing with Range.  Its 
rankings are simpler than ratings.  Range backers claim ratings are better.


On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:56:58 -0700 Greg Nisbet wrote:



On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Raph Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>  wrote:


On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Greg Nisbet
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
 > The United States uses FPTP, surprise surprise. However how bad
would FPTP
 > really be if you remove some of the stupidity?
 >
 > 1) Primaries
 >
 > Especially the presidential primaries. Why Iowa and New Hampshire
I ask you?
 > The Republican winner-takes-state primaries are especially bad.
The will of
 > the people is distorted. And the winners of primaries get legal
protection.

This shouldn't be an issue at all.  Parties should be allowed to pick
whoever they want, however they want.

I think, if you are going to have plurality, then it's probably better
to have them than not.

In FPTP parties NEED primaries - a party cannot afford to divide its 
members' votes among multiple candidates.


Only some states have primaries run by the state.  Makes sense if their 
voters prefer this.
 
Thanks for bringing this up, it is a perfectly valid criticism. I don't 
disagree with this point, but it technically isn't in conflict with what 
I said. First of all I argue two things, I didn't state them initially.
 
1) Primaries are anti-utilitarian.

2) The Government enforcing any way for parties to operate is bad.
 
It's sort of catch-22 I know. But think of it this way, we allow people 
to conduct elections based on FPTP. None of us advocated banning private 
FPTP elections. However, that does not stop us from criticizing their 
choice of method.
 
The second point I don't agee with because Median Voter would suggest 
that candidates would be more centrist on average if primaries didn't 
exist. I like moderates better than Democrats or Republicans and I think 
they are better for the country...


As soon as you get past two parties, FPTP is in trouble at the general 
election - voters cannot completely express their desires among more than 
two candidates.



 > 2) Sore loser laws
 >
 > If you lose a primary, you can't even run in some areas. The
state will
 > attempt to prevent you from stealing votes away from your party.

Yeah, that is bad, candidates should be allowed to run if they want.

 
If you let anyone who wants to be on the ballot be on the ballot, how 
bad would that really be?


A DISASTER!  Mechanics become difficult.  Voters cannot learn enough of all 
to sort them out.  Etc.

 A party with sufficient voters can reasonably nominate a candidate.
 Makes sense for a reasonable sized group of voters to nominate a 
candidate without formally getting involved in parties for this.


As to losers - they chose to try for party backing and got rejected - not 
the same as someone who only got approval outside the parties.



 > 3) Really bad ballot access laws.
 >
 > If people can't even run... it doesn't matter what voting method
you are
 > using.

Agreed.  Apparently, a federal law that allowed anyone with 2000
signature automatic ballot access to any given race would be unlikely
to result in more than 10 or so on any given ballot.  Would anyone
bother to collect 100k signatures in order to put 50 names on the
ballot?

 
I think an average voter would not get confused by large numbers of 
candidates. If they were organizes reasonably, the voter strictly 
benefits because they could always voter against unknown candidates as 

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Oct 18, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Raph Frank wrote:

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Jonathan Lundell  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Oct 18, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Raph Frank wrote:

I think this would be a better policy than the National Popular Vote
Interstate Compact.


Better in what sense?


In the sense that it will result in a PR Electoral College, rather
than entrenching FPTP as the method to elect the President.


I'm still not getting it. Perhaps I'm not following the mechanism  
you're suggesting.


I do agree that there are cases where a proportional EC with free- 
agent electors could have a better (in the sense of more democratic)  
result than FPTP--say in 1992, where FPTP elects Clinton, but a PR EC  
elects Bush1 by combining Bush and Perot electors, or in 2000 Nader 
+Gore electors defeat Bush2 (absent SCOTUS interference, anyway).


It's hard to imagine the mechanism, though, especially since without  
universal (by state) participation, any significant state not playing  
would have a strong edge (unless, I suppose, the compact states agreed  
to compensate...wheels within wheels).


The advantage of NPV is that it's simple and doable, even without the  
consent of small states currently over-represented in the College.  
Does that offset the distinct downside of entrenching FPTP plurality?  
Maybe so, unless the alternative is business as usual.





I would also like to see the rules preventing Electors from having a
mind of their own reduced.  Maybe also, the compact's electors would
have a pre-meeting to decide how to vote.

I am not sure if that would be constitutional though as they are
supposed to meet in the State capital, it could be claimed that this
implies that they don't meet anywhere else.

In any case, if there were 3-4 parties and nobody had a majority,
there would probably be some negotiations at the party level, so not
meeting up mightn't be an issue.




Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With primaries, the result of a plurality election is random.

No, there are 2 candidates picked, one from each party, and one of them wins.

Without primaries, there would likely still be two candidates picked
by the party leadership.  The only change is less democratic control.

However, the results of the primary elections themselves are more random.

>> I don't think so.  It really depends on the selection process for the
>> Republican and Democrat candidates.
>
> Think of it this way. Median Voter says that there is a general tendency
> for the two FPTP parties to become more alike in order to gather more votes.
> Thus the FPTP winner (if two candidates compete) is likely to the one
> closest to the center.

Maybe, however, it depends on how the party leaderships decide.  There
are two tendancies.  The candidate is pulled towards the median of
their own party during the primaries and then towards the overall
centre during the main election.

The result is a balance somewhere between the two.

> Democrats and Republicans vote in their own primaries. Therefore the winner
> of the Democratic primary will be a mid-Democrat. This isn't the same as a
> centrist, far from it.

That assumes that the voters don't want to win the main election.
They will take into account both how much the like the candidate and
what his chances to win are.

> The alternative is no primaries at all, not this.

Each party would decide on a candidate.  If there is no primary, how
do they make the decision.  It is inconceivable that the two parties
would decide to support multiple candidates if there was no primary.

> Hmm perhaps. Or we could do without this entirely and just have EVERY
> candidate be a write-in.

.. or have a write in space, and assign candidates who don't make it
to the ballot a CODE/ID.

>> In Ireland, there is a deposit.  You get your deposit back if you are
>> supported by enough voters.  I think it is around 25% of a quota.
>
>
> Actually, that isn't such a bad idea. If you can give enough money to the
> government to compensate for wasting people's time with a silly candidacy, I
> say go for it.

The trick is to not make it to high.  If is was $100,000, then it is a
major barrier.

>> >> It is a good idea.  But it seems like it was broken from the start.
>> >> The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision.
>> >
>> > I have to disagree with you on that one. I do not see it doing anything
>> > useful. It either corrects the people's will (in which case it is
>> > paternalistic and evil) or it does nothing making it a giant waste of
>> > resources.
>>
>> It is like asset voting.  Your representative negotiates on your
>> behalf until a majority is achieved.

Yes, I know, but I said " But it seems like it was broken from the
start.  The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision."

If they met (and it was proportional), then it would be a perfectly
reasonable system.

>> It might also be worth using the Electoral College to fill a vacancy
>> in the VP position, without needing Senate approval.  Ofc, that is
>> moving in the direction of a parliamentary system.
>
>
> I like parliamentary systems. They appear to be less corrupt on average.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
> That would be a legitimate function of an Electoral College. Performing
> "maintenance elections" when someone dies, is kicked out etc.
> I would say just use the next best guy from the previous election, but
> whatever.

I do too.  However, it is against US political culture, so it might be
a bridge to far.

>> It comes down to sovereignty.  In a unitary democracy, a majority of
>> all the citizens is the final judge on all issues and thus holds
>> sovereignty.
>
> That isn't such a bad idea.

I think it depends on size.  Ireland is 4.5 million people, and the US
is 300+ million.

This makes it easier to find one rule that everyone will agree.  For
300 million people, there is a larger distribution of viewpoints.

>> In Ireland, a majority can change the constitution in any way that
>> they please.  This makes Ireland a democracy.

meant *unitary* (as opposed to federal) democracy here :p.

> It seems pretty hard to nail down exactly what a democracy is. It makes it
> certainly is a democratic and not republican trend to allow voters to do
> this.

There is also a requirement for the Dail (lower house of parliament)
to propose the amendment, but it is PR elected, so a majority can get
a majority in the Dail (in fact 45% could probably manage it if it was
a single party with solid transfers).

>> This is not the case in the US, you don't have the concept of holding
>> a referendum of all the citizens and that being the final judge.  Your
>> consitution is changed by 75% of the States (and 2/3 of both Houses)
>> and not 50% of the people.
>
> That is true. I don't like it one bit.

It has the advantage that you can 

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Jonathan Lundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
>> I think this would be a better policy than the National Popular Vote
>> Interstate Compact.
>
> Better in what sense?

In the sense that it will result in a PR Electoral College, rather
than entrenching FPTP as the method to elect the President.

I would also like to see the rules preventing Electors from having a
mind of their own reduced.  Maybe also, the compact's electors would
have a pre-meeting to decide how to vote.

I am not sure if that would be constitutional though as they are
supposed to meet in the State capital, it could be claimed that this
implies that they don't meet anywhere else.

In any case, if there were 3-4 parties and nobody had a majority,
there would probably be some negotiations at the party level, so not
meeting up mightn't be an issue.

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Greg Nisbet]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Raph Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > 1) Primaries are anti-utilitarian.
>
> Without primaries, then the result of a plurality election is either
> random, or more likely decided by the 2 party leaderships.


With primaries, the result of a plurality election is random.

>
>
> > 2) The Government enforcing any way for parties to operate is bad.
>
> Agreed, but even without government rules, I think that it is in the
> best interests of parties to have primaries.


That really isn't our concern. They can if they wish, but they should be
neither penalized nor rewarded (by the voting system) for doing so.

>
>
> > The second point I don't agee with because Median Voter would suggest
> that
> > candidates would be more centrist on average if primaries didn't exist. I
> > like moderates better than Democrats or Republicans and I think they are
> > better for the country...
>
> I don't think so.  It really depends on the selection process for the
> Republican and Democrat candidates.


Think of it this way. Median Voter says that there is a general tendency
for the two FPTP parties to become more alike in order to gather more votes.
Thus the FPTP winner (if two candidates compete) is likely to the one
closest to the center.

Democrats and Republicans vote in their own primaries. Therefore the winner
of the Democratic primary will be a mid-Democrat. This isn't the same as a
centrist, far from it.

>
>
> It is possible that the men 'in smoky rooms' would pick candidates who
> are more centrist.  If not, then you get the same type of candidates
> picked.
>

The alternative is no primaries at all, not this.

>
>
> > If you let anyone who wants to be on the ballot be on the ballot, how bad
> > would that really be?
>
> Right, I think we agree here.


Yep.

>
>
> > I think an average voter would not get confused by large numbers of
> > candidates. If they were organizes reasonably, the voter strictly
> benefits
> > because they could always vote against unknown candidates as a matter of
> > principle. Most do, so I don't see what people are whining about.
>
> There is a balance here.  If the rule is too easy, then you get people
> registering 100 names just for the fun of it.


Hmm perhaps. Or we could do without this entirely and just have EVERY
candidate be a write-in.

>
>
> The 2000 signature rule means that it requires to much effort for the
> joke to be worth it.


I suppose.

>
>
> In Ireland, there is a deposit.  You get your deposit back if you are
> supported by enough voters.  I think it is around 25% of a quota.


Actually, that isn't such a bad idea. If you can give enough money to the
government to compensate for wasting people's time with a silly candidacy, I
say go for it.

>
>
> >> It is a good idea.  But it seems like it was broken from the start.
> >> The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision.
> >
> > I have to disagree with you on that one. I do not see it doing anything
> > useful. It either corrects the people's will (in which case it is
> > paternalistic and evil) or it does nothing making it a giant waste of
> > resources.
>
> It is like asset voting.  Your representative negotiates on your
> behalf until a majority is achieved.


They don't actually meet and discuss it. They just cast their vote and are
done with it (sometimes honestly, sometimes not). It would be great if they
did discuss it. That might actually make the Electoral College worthwhile.

>
>
> As with most things, it would benefit a lot from PR.


agreed

>
>
> It might also be worth using the Electoral College to fill a vacancy
> in the VP position, without needing Senate approval.  Ofc, that is
> moving in the direction of a parliamentary system.


I like parliamentary systems. They appear to be less corrupt on average.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
That would be a legitimate function of an Electoral College. Performing
"maintenance elections" when someone dies, is kicked out etc.
I would say just use the next best guy from the previous election, but
whatever.

>
>
> >> Well, in theory, the US is a federation, not a democracy.  In any
> >> case, that requires 100% of the States to agree for it to be changed.
> > Umm federation and democracy are not mutually exclusive.
>
> Well, to a certain extent.  I guess I mean that the US is not unitary,
> it is a federation.
>
> It comes down to sovereignty.  In a unitary democracy, a majority of
> all the citizens is the final judge on all issues and thus holds
> sovereignty.


That isn't such a bad idea.

>
>
> In Ireland, a majority can change the constitution in any way that
> they please.  This makes Ireland a democracy.


It seems pretty hard to nail down exactly what a democracy is. It makes it
certainly is a democratic and not republican trend to allow voters to do
this.

>
>
> This is not the case in the US, you don't ha

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Oct 18, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Raph Frank wrote:


A reasonable idea would be for a group of States to get together and
all agree (by compact maybe) to switch to proportional.  If the group
as a whole has the same proportion of support for each party as it
currently casts its votes, then it doesn't change the balance, but it
means that those States now matter as they are no longer locked down
by one or other of the parties.

I think this would be a better policy than the National Popular Vote
Interstate Compact.


Better in what sense?

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Kathy Dopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is not quite true. There are two states, Maine and one other (I
> forget which) that proportionally split their electoral votes.
> Recently there was an effort by Republicans to have CA split its
> electoral votes proportionally - but Dems fought it because it would
> have virtually guaranteed that Republicans win the Presidential
> contest.

Yeah, it is the whole 'unilateral disarmament' issue.

A reasonable idea would be for a group of States to get together and
all agree (by compact maybe) to switch to proportional.  If the group
as a whole has the same proportion of support for each party as it
currently casts its votes, then it doesn't change the balance, but it
means that those States now matter as they are no longer locked down
by one or other of the parties.

I think this would be a better policy than the National Popular Vote
Interstate Compact.

It would even be possible to create a compact if the States were
unbalanced.  The last (disadvantaged) State to enter would be allowed
to assign some of its seat to the majority winner and then the rest
proportionally.

Ofc, that requires that each State to be certified as a Republican
and/or Democrat State.  Maybe, it could be based on the the results of
the last 4 elections.  I think there are a reasonable number of States
which are solid for one party or another.

Also, it would probably be necessary to allow States to assign their
two Senate EC voters to the majority winner.  Otherwise, small States
wouldn't join, though maybe that doesn't matter.

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) Primaries are anti-utilitarian.

Without primaries, then the result of a plurality election is either
random, or more likely decided by the 2 party leaderships.

> 2) The Government enforcing any way for parties to operate is bad.

Agreed, but even without government rules, I think that it is in the
best interests of parties to have primaries.

> The second point I don't agee with because Median Voter would suggest that
> candidates would be more centrist on average if primaries didn't exist. I
> like moderates better than Democrats or Republicans and I think they are
> better for the country...

I don't think so.  It really depends on the selection process for the
Republican and Democrat candidates.

It is possible that the men 'in smoky rooms' would pick candidates who
are more centrist.  If not, then you get the same type of candidates
picked.


> If you let anyone who wants to be on the ballot be on the ballot, how bad
> would that really be?

Right, I think we agree here.

> I think an average voter would not get confused by large numbers of
> candidates. If they were organizes reasonably, the voter strictly benefits
> because they could always voter against unknown candidates as a matter of
> principle. Most do, so I don't see what people are whining about.

There is a balance here.  If the rule is to easy, then you get people
registering 100 names just for the fun of it.

The 2000 signature rule means that it requires to much effort for the
joke to be worth it.

In Ireland, there is a deposit.  You get your deposit back if you are
supported by enough voters.  I think it is around 25% of a quota.

>> It is a good idea.  But it seems like it was broken from the start.
>> The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision.
>
> I have to disagree with you on that one. I do not see it doing anything
> useful. It either corrects the people's will (in which case it is
> paternalistic and evil) or it does nothing making it a giant waste of
> resources.

It is like asset voting.  Your representative negotiates on your
behalf until a majority is achieved.

As with most things, it would benefit a lot from PR.

It might also be worth using the Electoral College to fill a vacancy
in the VP position, without needing Senate approval.  Ofc, that is
moving in the direction of a parliamentary system.

>> Well, in theory, the US is a federation, not a democracy.  In any
>> case, that requires 100% of the States to agree for it to be changed.
> Umm federation and democracy are not mutually exclusive.

Well, to a certain extent.  I guess I mean that the US is not unitary,
it is a federation.

It comes down to sovereignty.  In a unitary democracy, a majority of
all the citizens is the final judge on all issues and thus holds
sovereignty.

In Ireland, a majority can change the constitution in any way that
they please.  This makes Ireland a democracy.

This is not the case in the US, you don't have the concept of holding
a referendum of all the citizens and that being the final judge.  Your
consitution is changed by 75% of the States (and 2/3 of both Houses)
and not 50% of the people.

Sovereignty is divided and split between the citizens based on place
of residence.  You have some powers relating to your state and some
relating to the US as a whole.

In Ireland, a majority could impose its will on a minority, while in
the US a majority is limited in what it can impose on a minority (if
it happens to be protected by (or is) a majority in one of the States)

> Anyway, my opinion
> might be biased because I live in California, the state most screwed over by
> the system. I do not buy the whole prevent tyrannical regions from taking
> over nonsense b/c preventing tyranny is a civil rights issue not a voting
> system issue. Attempting to design some system to subvert the will of the
> voters "for their own good" is not to be trusted.

The whole 'States are not allowed to leave' rule does give some weight
to your argument.  However, the theory was that the federal government
wasn't meant to be 'the government'.  Also, you are allowed to leave
California, if those other States have got it so good.

>> In fact, I think that having the States do the redistricting is better
>> than allowing Congress do it.  If the States were independently
>> controlled, then there is less of a conflict of interest.
>
> Not exactly. You just have mini conflicts of interest that don't all line up
> in one direction instead of one big one.

Isn't that better?

>> However, the 2 party system is entrenched, so the State legislatures
>> aren't independent.
> yep exactly. This might arguably be better.

Well then, we disagree.  Random conflicts of interest should at least
partially cancel out, but under the 2 party system, that isn't the
case.

The ideal is a body that is elected specifically to decide on boundaries.

Also, I think deciding on boundaries would be a per

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Oct 18, 2008, at 7:29 AM, Terry Bouricius wrote:

Actually, Maine and Nebraska do NOT apportion electoral college  
seats in a

proportional way.
Instead of statewide winner-take-all (as in all other states), they  
use
plurality winner-take-all in each congressional district within the  
state,
with the remaining two seats going to the statewide plurality  
winner. The

results COULD be roughly proportional or even LESS proportional than
statewide winner-take-all by happenstance of how supporters of various
candidates are distributed around the state.

However, with true proportional distribution of electors, there is  
also
the increased likelihood of no majority winner in the electoral  
college,
which throws the election of president to the House of  
Representatives,
with one vote for each state (my tiny state of Vermont delegation  
gets one
vote and the massive state of California delegation gets one  
vote)...which

is even LESS proportional than the electoral college makeup.


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.


The effect has been somewhat mitigated of late because of the  
increasing role of national media--cable TV and the net in particular-- 
and those of us in "safe states" can be grateful not to be subjected  
to a retail campaign (and we're free to vote for third-party  
candidates without fear of ill consequence). Still, I'd prefer that my  
vote be relevant to the outcome.



Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Oct 17, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Raph Frank wrote:


9) Elections on Tuesday

why not make election day a holiday? or hold it on weekends?


I thought they were held over multiple days with 'early voting', or
was that changed?


There was a useful piece on this subject this morning on NPR  (the audio isn't available as I write, but should be up shortly).  
Well over half the United States (31 or 34, ISTR) have early voting,  
leaving a significant minority that do not.


California, or at least some CA counties, push early voting fairly  
hard, and a growing percentage of voters in the state vote before  
election day--more than a third, recently, IIRC. You can vote by mail,  
or by stopping by the registrar's office, which is set up with several  
voting booths; that's what I did last week.


California goes a bit too far, in my view, in that voting starts about  
30 days before Election Day, which tends to draw out an already too- 
long campaign season. I ran for my local school board a few years  
back, and it's hard to run for local office knowing that more than a  
third of your voters will be voting before the height of the campaign  
(in this case a series of debates sponsored by various community  
groups during October). Why thirty days? I don't really know; I assume  
it was in the "more is better" category of decision making.


Oregon, which is 100% vote-by-mail, says 14-18 days, which seems like  
more than enough.


All that considered, I rather miss the sense of community of a local  
polling place. Mine have been in somebody's garage, or a local fire  
station, until my precinct became vote-by-mail, under a California  
election code provision that allows registrars to designate very small  
precincts as such.


Why Tuesday, by the way? The usual explanation sounds plausible enough:

In 1845, before Florida, California, and Texas were states or  
slavery had been abolished, Congress needed to pick a time for  
Americans to vote. We were an agrarian society. We traveled by horse  
and buggy. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to  
vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the three days  
of worship. So that left Tuesday and Wednesday, but Wednesday was  
market day. So, Tuesday it was. In 1875 Congress extended the  
Tuesday date for national House elections and in 1914 for federal  
Senate elections.


http://www.whytuesday.org/answer (yes, there's an organization and  
website dedicated to the issue; no doubt it's not the only one)


Tuesday voting obviously isn't universal; is it strictly a US  
peculiarity?


Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Terry Bouricius]

Actually, Maine and Nebraska do NOT apportion electoral college seats in a 
proportional way.
Instead of statewide winner-take-all (as in all other states), they use 
plurality winner-take-all in each congressional district within the state, 
with the remaining two seats going to the statewide plurality winner. The 
results COULD be roughly proportional or even LESS proportional than 
statewide winner-take-all by happenstance of how supporters of various 
candidates are distributed around the state.

However, with true proportional distribution of electors, there is also 
the increased likelihood of no majority winner in the electoral college, 
which throws the election of president to the House of Representatives, 
with one vote for each state (my tiny state of Vermont delegation gets one 
vote and the massive state of California delegation gets one vote)...which 
is even LESS proportional than the electoral college makeup.

Terry Bouricius




- Original Message - 
From: "Kathy Dopp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse


Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:17:14 +0100
> From: "Raph Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
> The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision.
>
> This is compounded by the fact that all states have switched to winner
> takes all methods of selecting the electors, so it is double broken.
>

That is not quite true. There are two states, Maine and one other (I
forget which) that proportionally split their electoral votes.
Recently there was an effort by Republicans to have CA split its
electoral votes proportionally - but Dems fought it because it would
have virtually guaranteed that Republicans win the Presidential
contest.

Kathy

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info


Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Oct 17, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:


Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:17:14 +0100

From: "Raph Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision.

This is compounded by the fact that all states have switched to  
winner

takes all methods of selecting the electors, so it is double broken.



That is not quite true. There are two states, Maine and one other (I
forget which) that proportionally split their electoral votes.
Recently there was an effort by Republicans to have CA split its
electoral votes proportionally - but Dems fought it because it would
have virtually guaranteed that Republicans win the Presidential
contest.


That is not quite true. Maine and Nebraska assign their electoral  
votes by the winner in each congressional district, and the two extra  
votes by the statewide vote. In practice, neither state has ever split  
their electoral vote (though Obama may have a shot at the district  
containing Omaha this year).


Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Kathy Dopp]

 Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:17:14 +0100
> From: "Raph Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
> The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision.
>
> This is compounded by the fact that all states have switched to winner
> takes all methods of selecting the electors, so it is double broken.
>

That is not quite true. There are two states, Maine and one other (I
forget which) that proportionally split their electoral votes.
Recently there was an effort by Republicans to have CA split its
electoral votes proportionally - but Dems fought it because it would
have virtually guaranteed that Republicans win the Presidential
contest.

Kathy

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Oct 17, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Greg Nisbet wrote:

I think you need to prove you have some 'valid reason' to vote  
early. Anyway, I know there are some restrictions that make it  
inconvenient otherwise who would show up at the polls?


Depends on the state. In California, you just have to ask, and many  
county registrars encourage you to ask. You can ask for a single  
election, or become a permanent absentee voter.


Oregon is exclusively vote-by-mail, as is my precinct in California.

Since mail-in ballots must be received by election day (postmarks  
don't count), it's inherently an early-voting system. In California,  
ballots are mailed out about 30 days before the election, which makes  
life difficult for candidates. Oregon says 14-18 days, which seems  
more than adequate.


Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Greg Nisbet]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Raph Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The United States uses FPTP, surprise surprise. However how bad would
> FPTP
> > really be if you remove some of the stupidity?
> >
> > 1) Primaries
> >
> > Especially the presidential primaries. Why Iowa and New Hampshire I ask
> you?
> > The Republican winner-takes-state primaries are especially bad. The will
> of
> > the people is distorted. And the winners of primaries get legal
> protection.
>
> This shouldn't be an issue at all.  Parties should be allowed to pick
> whoever they want, however they want.
>
> I think, if you are going to have plurality, then it's probably better
> to have them than not.


Thanks for bringing this up, it is a perfectly valid criticism. I don't
disagree with this point, but it technically isn't in conflict with what I
said. First of all I argue two things, I didn't state them initially.

1) Primaries are anti-utilitarian.
2) The Government enforcing any way for parties to operate is bad.

It's sort of catch-22 I know. But think of it this way, we allow people to
conduct elections based on FPTP. None of us advocated banning private FPTP
elections. However, that does not stop us from criticizing their choice of
method.

The second point I don't agee with because Median Voter would suggest that
candidates would be more centrist on average if primaries didn't exist. I
like moderates better than Democrats or Republicans and I think they are
better for the country...

>
>
> > 2) Sore loser laws
> >
> > If you lose a primary, you can't even run in some areas. The state will
> > attempt to prevent you from stealing votes away from your party.
>
> Yeah, that is bad, candidates should be allowed to run if they want.


If you let anyone who wants to be on the ballot be on the ballot, how bad
would that really be?

>
>
> > 3) Really bad ballot access laws.
> >
> > If people can't even run... it doesn't matter what voting method you are
> > using.
>
> Agreed.  Apparently, a federal law that allowed anyone with 2000
> signature automatic ballot access to any given race would be unlikely
> to result in more than 10 or so on any given ballot.  Would anyone
> bother to collect 100k signatures in order to put 50 names on the
> ballot?
>

I think an average voter would not get confused by large numbers of
candidates. If they were organizes reasonably, the voter strictly benefits
because they could always voter against unknown candidates as a matter of
principle. Most do, so I don't see what people are whining about.

>
> Also, there are some criminal laws linked to this, so collecting
> signatures could put you at risk.
>
> > 4) The Electoral College
> >
> > Someone explain to me how this makes sense. We elect a group of 538
> people
> > who will then elect one person. Umm... why elect these people? They
> aren't
> > doing anything complicated, they are just signing their name and the name
> of
> > a candidate. Electing Congress makes sense, how else would you handle the
> > loads of legislation that they create every so often?
>
> It is a good idea.  But it seems like it was broken from the start.
> The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision.



I have to disagree with you on that one. I do not see it doing anything
useful. It either corrects the people's will (in which case it is
paternalistic and evil) or it does nothing making it a giant waste of
resources.

>
>
> This is compounded by the fact that all states have switched to winner
> takes all methods of selecting the electors, so it is double broken.
>
> > 5) The Senate
> >
> > States aren't represented by their population. This means rural bias etc.
> > How can their opinion be regarded as representing America's?
>
> Well, in theory, the US is a federation, not a democracy.  In any
> case, that requires 100% of the States to agree for it to be changed.
>

Umm federation and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, my opinion
might be biased because I live in California, the state most screwed over by
the system. I do not buy the whole prevent tyrannical regions from taking
over nonsense b/c preventing tyranny is a civil rights issue not a voting
system issue. Attempting to design some system to subvert the will of the
voters "for their own good" is not to be trusted.

>
> OTOH, if you want to be evil, you could strip the Senate of all its
> power, that would 'only' require 75% of the States.
>

> 6) The House
>
> Whose bright idea was it to let the states decide how to redistrict
> themselves? Seriously.

The same people who let legislatures redistrict for themselves.
>
> In fact, I think that having the States do the redistricting is better
> than allowing Congress do it.  If the States were independently
> controlled, then there is less of a conflict of interest.
>

Not exactly. You just have mini conflicts of interest that don't all line up
in one direction 

Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The United States uses FPTP, surprise surprise. However how bad would FPTP
> really be if you remove some of the stupidity?
>
> 1) Primaries
>
> Especially the presidential primaries. Why Iowa and New Hampshire I ask you?
> The Republican winner-takes-state primaries are especially bad. The will of
> the people is distorted. And the winners of primaries get legal protection.

This shouldn't be an issue at all.  Parties should be allowed to pick
whoever they want, however they want.

I think, if you are going to have plurality, then it's probably better
to have them than not.

> 2) Sore loser laws
>
> If you lose a primary, you can't even run in some areas. The state will
> attempt to prevent you from stealing votes away from your party.

Yeah, that is bad, candidates should be allowed to run if they want.

> 3) Really bad ballot access laws.
>
> If people can't even run... it doesn't matter what voting method you are
> using.

Agreed.  Apparently, a federal law that allowed anyone with 2000
signature automatic ballot access to any given race would be unlikely
to result in more than 10 or so on any given ballot.  Would anyone
bother to collect 100k signatures in order to put 50 names on the
ballot?

Also, there are some criminal laws linked to this, so collecting
signatures could put you at risk.

> 4) The Electoral College
>
> Someone explain to me how this makes sense. We elect a group of 538 people
> who will then elect one person. Umm... why elect these people? They aren't
> doing anything complicated, they are just signing their name and the name of
> a candidate. Electing Congress makes sense, how else would you handle the
> loads of legislation that they create every so often?

It is a good idea.  But it seems like it was broken from the start.
The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision.

This is compounded by the fact that all states have switched to winner
takes all methods of selecting the electors, so it is double broken.

> 5) The Senate
>
> States aren't represented by their population. This means rural bias etc.
> How can their opinion be regarded as representing America's?

Well, in theory, the US is a federation, not a democracy.  In any
case, that requires 100% of the States to agree for it to be changed.

OTOH, if you want to be evil, you could strip the Senate of all its
power, that would 'only' require 75% of the States.

> 6) The House
>
> Whose bright idea was it to let the states decide how to redistrict
> themselves? Seriously.

The same people who let legislatures redistrict for themselves.

In fact, I think that having the States do the redistricting is better
than allowing Congress do it.  If the States were independently
controlled, then there is less of a conflict of interest.

However, the 2 party system is entrenched, so the State legislatures
aren't independent.

> 7) Gerrymandering
>
> In addition to (6) and gerrymandering at the local level, the state
> boundaries themselves were gerrymandered. It was mostly due to slavery, but
> the vestiges of these funky decisions still remain. There are also a ton of
> low-population states between California and the Mississippi River, whose
> brilliant idea was that?

I think that once off gerrymandering isn't as bad as gerrymandering
after the census.

It isn't self reinforcing.  As time passes, things change.  With
Congressional boundaries, they are re-adjusted as things change to
cancel it out.  You can't readjust State boundaries.

> 8) Two Parties
>
> This might be a consequence of FPTP, but seriously. The Libertarian Party,
> the third largest, is still TINY by comparison to the Democrats and
> Republicans. It is no wonder we have so many independents in this country.
> Many people dislike both parties but have no idea what to do. The UK and
> Canada seem to manage more parties.

There is a need for 3rd parties to concentrate their efforts on
specific areas.  The problem is that the 2 parties use their power to
reinforce the 2 party system.

Also, each level of government is held by the 2 parties, so it is hard
to break it.

Anyway, maybe the Libertarians should pick a state and focus all their
national effort on getting a Libertarian elected to the House of
Representatives in that State.  Once they achieve that, they can move
on to getting a second one elected from the State.  Ofc, their seat
would likely be gerrymandered away since their Representative wouldn't
be a member of one of the two parties.

Maybe the reason that 3rd parties are more viable in the UK and Canada
is that there is more independence in setting the boundaries.  This
means that they can't be gerrymandered out of existence if they manage
to get one seat.

> 9) Elections on Tuesday
>
> why not make election day a holiday? or hold it on weekends?

I thought they were held over multiple days with 'early voting', or
was that changed?

Election-Methods mailing list - se