Slashdot Mirror

I found a link to this article here a while back, and it is relevant to this thread:

Math Against Tyranny

It is a mathemtician's view as to why the Electoral College has helped this country. It's kind of a long read, but definitely worth it. It even references the Pirates over the Yankees in the '60 World Series - that can't be a bad thing...

One great quote from the article about why equal voting isn't enough:

"Under a tyranny, everyoneâ(TM)s power is equal to zero. Clearly, equality alone is not enough."

Here's an article, originally published about 12 years ago in Discover magazine, explaining why your vote has MORE power in the electoral college system.

Of course, the real world sometimes intrudes on the theoretical. I live in a heavily Democratic state, so were I to vote Republican -- and I'm not saying that I will -- it would essentially be an exercise in futility.

There are pros and cons to the electoral college system. Yes, it does empower smaller states, but in heavily tilted states, it can also disempower the individual who swims counter to the political current.

An interesting article about the mathematical implications of the electoral college system on voter power: http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm

So you are saying that an Alaskan's vote would count for more being 1 of 300 million than it does being one of 700,000? 25% of Alaskans is fewer than the number of absentee ballots they didn't count in California in 2000. In 2000, California stopped counting absentee ballots when the number of remaining absentee ballots was less than the difference between the number of votes that Al Gore had and the number of votes that George W. Bush had. (All states follow a similar practice, I just remember this because the number of absentee ballots not counted in California significantly exceeded the number of total votes that Gore was supposed to have over Bush). Whatever state you live in your vote means more as one of that number than it would as one of the total population. There was a great article that showed that an individual vote makes a greater difference with 50 state races than it would in one national poll http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm

Math Against Tyranny

I recommend this article for anyone who has a strong opinion about the Electoral College either way. This article (written in 1996) gives a sound argument for keeping the Electoral College and not going to a pure, popular vote. Essentially, as quoted from the article, "...our electoral system increases voters' power."

Technically, some electors are bound to the results of their state. Notably, Ohio.

In 1800, Jefferson's opponent was the morally challenged Aaron Burr, who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, and later still was tried for "high crimes" when his plot was uncovered to take New Orleans by force and make it the capitol of his new western empire http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/b urr/burraccount.html Burr was tried but acquitted (although its likely he was guilty). Jefferson was a fine President and stateman.

In 1824, there was no 'popular vote' in the United States (nor was there in 1800). See http://www.avagara.com/politics/ec_zine/1824/ for details -- no candidate appeared on the ballot in all states, and not all states allowed the people to vote for the President. Regardless of that, the rules set out in the constitution yielded a good President. Adams subsequently became President in 1828.

In 1876, you neglect to mention that massive fraud instigated by both political parties marred the election process over much of the country (Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oregon) http://www.rbhayes.org/dispute.htm and http://www.rbhayes.org/disputeFAQ.htm. Still, the process resulted in the selection of a President who proved worthy of praise. He was a forward thinker concerned with the rights of minorities and the poor long before that became popular. While we don't know what kind of president Tilden would've benn, he was (later) opposed to the Civil War ... a huge error in judgement in my opinion.

The election of 1888 went exactly as it should have. There's no provision in our Presential Election process for the popular vote to select the president. Other than that, Harrison was a much better President than Grover Cleveland, having the vision and fortitude to accomplish great things during his term. http://www.americanpresident.org/history/benjaminh arrison/

Do we even need to discuss the 2000 Election? Gore absolutely fell apart after the defeat -- he would not have been able to stand up to the pressure of the worst terrorist attack in history. On the other hand, President Bush is a doer that has a long list of accomplishments during his first term.

the system as it stands now has serious deficiencies.

It may have some discussion points, but it certainly does not have 'serious deficiencies.' All the examples you presented are examples of our election process *WORKING*, not examples of it not working.

Part of the animosity in politics today can be partly attributed, at least in my opinion, to the fact that Bush was constitutionally, but not popularily, elected.

I don't accept that for a minute, but that's fodder for another time.

To suggest we change the Constitution because part of a part of the animosity might be reduced is kinda ridiculous. Throughout history there have been losers not happy with the outcome, and will continue to be. Some will hold a grudge. That's how some people work.

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they devised the Electoral College and our system of selecting a President. We just need to tweak the voting registration requirements a little.

According to this analysis by an MIT physicist, the Electoral College is effective at empowering individual voters (basically because it's easier for your one vote to influence the outcome of a local election, and, indirectly, the national election, than it is for it to influence the national election directly. He found interesting dependences of voting power on the size of the electorate and the closeness of the election.

In a comment to my original post, Saige points out an excellent explanation of why the Electoral College is important. It's much better explained than anything I could cobble together so I suggest you read it and see if you still believe your comment.

First, Math Against Tyranny is a great article that demonstrates much of the value of the electoral college. It was enough to convince me of the value of it, and convert me from anti-EC to pro-EC.

Second, I agree that IRV is more complex than we'd like to see in a voting system. I would rather see approval voting implemented, as it is just as simple as the current method, and gives much more valuable results.

Note that you don't need to remove the EC to implement a better voting system like approval voting.

Obligatory link for yet another person who doesn't understand the electoral college: Math against Tyranny

Yes, taking a raw percentage of the overall vote is a Bad Idea. It makes campaigning unimportant, since overall it's not likely to be a close race.

Taking each congressional district, however might be a Good Idea. It makes campaigning more important, because each district has a greater chance of being close. Of course, then each district controls only a single EV, so you need to consider whether it's worth it.

This paper should be required reading of anyone even thinking about changing our voting system.

I like the analogy that mathematician used: The Electoral College is like the world series. The winning baseball team isn't the team that can score the most runs; it's the team that wins the most games. The Electoral College forces candidates to win *states*, instead of winning in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. (because that's where the most voters are).

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

Then, it appears to be permissible for the state legislature to appoint the electors. But note that it states that the legislature directs the manner in which they are selected, not the selection itself.

I did a quick web search and found this web site that provides a table of how the electors are chosen in the various states: How States and Parties Choose Electors. Just click on the table if you have javascript enabled on your browser.

From the table, it appears that only Wisconsin leaves the selection of electors up to the "Legislators & candidates". And the Democratic Party electors in California are chosen by Democrats running in the U.S. House and Senate races to choose the electors.

The electors in most states are chosen by the party's state convention or by the party.

The table seems to be from a 1983 publication. There has undoubtedly been some changes since then.

A little more searching finds this more up to date web page: Which electors are bound?. According to it, states (and DC) binding electors to vote for their pledged candidates are Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. So, 26 states and the District of Columbia bind their electors.

But note that it also says:

Keep in mind that just because a state has a law requiring an elector to vote a certain way does not mean the elector must do so. People break the law all the time, and a would-be faithless elector could change his vote and just face the consequences. However, no faithless elector has ever been punished for his vote. In North Carolina, South Carolina, and Michigan, faithless electors are replaced before their vote can be sent to Congress.

It may be contractually required in some states (but not in all), but if the College elector doesn't vote the way he's "contractually required" to, nothing happens to him.

I read some apologist say that nothing happens to these people "because they didn't make any difference to the results." From which I conclude that incompetent criminals (such as people who try to rob a bank but don't get any money) should not be charged either.

I can agree with Money being a big help (anywhere, not just in the US), but calling the electoral college "ludicrous" is, well, ludicrous.

This article here gives a decent overview over why the electoral college is probably superior to just counting straight votes. It mostly has to do with lessening the power of voting blocs. Of course, voting blocs reminds me of the huge problem with gerrymandering in this country. Sigh.

Perhaps the electoral college is really a problem, and I'm not looking at it correctly, but I really doubt it. Twice in 200 years have we had the person who won the popular vote lose the election, and that seems like a small problem if the system decreases the power of large blocs.

The millions of people who want campaign finance reform obviously don't want it enough, or politicians would be voted out for opposing it. Money may grease the wheels, but it's still the vote of the common man that puts them in office.

Gordon Smith? His staff sucks and he doesn't care about his constituency. You should vote against him in the next ellection. Tell everyone you know about your experience and try to get them to vote against him, too. Find out what parades and such he's going to be in and go to them so you can heckle him. (That's my Dad's favorite hobby. His target of choice is Wally Herger.) I make it a point to vote against incumbents unless I can think of something specific that they've done that really impressed me. Change is good, and should always be pursued unless there is a good reason not to. It's the good reason that will bite you in the ass, though, especially if you haven't properly weighed the pros and cons. That's why a Democracy without a well educated populace is dangerous and inflamatory.

Sure those with money often have more influence, but so do people who belong to Labor Unions and other organizations like the ACLU, EPIC, and other PACs (not all of them are corporate-owned, you know).

How about the one our founders thought should apply. One vote, one person.

This is a commonly held perception, but it is obviously false. If the Founding Fathers truely felt that way there wouldn't be an Electoral College. I used to think the EC was BS and should be done away with, but I read a mathematical analysis of it a year or 2 ago that changed my mind. Non- and Semi-proportional representation is actually a very important and necessary part of our political system. It's one of the main things that keeps the majority from trampling all over the minority.

You do acknowledge the real problem, but it isn't money. Nor is it our political system. The problem is apathy, and it runs deep. Not just the apathy that keeps people from getting off their butts every other year to spend 10 minutes at the poles, but apathy towards educating ourselves to the things that are happening in the world. It's true that some Americans wouldn't care what Union Carbide is doing in Bhopal, but I bet the vast majority would care if they had ever heard about it, even though most of them wouldn't have the first clue about what they could do to rectify the situation.

Apathy is also what keeps you buying Levi and Nike products. If you really cared that your Nikes are made by physically, mentally, and sexually abused Vietnamese women make $0.20/hour, you would seek out the various catalogs offering guilt-free clothing made from humanely harvested wool from free-range sheep, organically grown cotton and hemp, and recycled rubber by adequately-compensated craftsmen. But it's easier to just go to Footlocker and then point your finger hoping nobody notices what you're wearing on your feet, so that's what you do.

Which brings me to another common problem in America; lack of personal responsibility. As long as you keep buying Nike shoes, all your anti-corporate rhetoric is just that; hollow words from a whiner trying to blame everyone else for a problem he created and continues to perpetuate. As long as you keep buying Nike shoes, those Vietnamese women will continue to be exploited.

This reminds me of a story about Ghandi:

A woman came to see him, child in tow.
"Please tell my child not to eat sugar" the woman said.
Ghandi told the woman to come back in two weeks. Two weeks later, the woman brought her child again. Ghandi looks at the kid and says: "Don't eat sugar."
The woman is stunned. "That's it? I had to go for two weeks just for that?"
"You see," says Ghandi, "Two weeks ago, *I* ate sugar."

If you're going to climb up on a soapbox, you should first make sure you have a leg to stand on.

Well, maybe in your socialist nation, he would have been the loser. However, here in the nited States we have a thing called the Constitution, which was approved by geographical and cultural bodies called "states". Way back in the early 19th century, we decided to go to an electoral system to make it easier to count votes and give more voting power (not less as claimed by the ignorant) to the individual citizen. Of course, if you weren't such a EU drone you would know that.
Go trolling elsewhere.

True, there are better alternatives to voting than the simple one person one vote, as you metion; as long is it is still conducted on a state by state basis. With all of the recent news coverage concering the 'antiquated' electoral college system currently in use, I'd like to point out that just as any good developer knows; you don't change what you don't fully understand. I think there has been an overwhelming rush to jugdement on the electoral college, based soley on it's shortcomings, and no consideration for what benifits it may provide. I must admit that until I read the recent /. article link Math against Tyranny, I too had fallen victim to the hype. I have since left the bandwagon and would hope others as well would first understand what the current system provides for prior to asking for change.

Naah, scary is the fact that some states' electors are allowed to "vote their conscience" - that is, while many electors are required by law to cast their votes for President depending on the popular vote in their state, other states permit their electors to vote against the will of their people.

It's the memory leak in the code of the US Constitution that everybody's ignored becase "oh, it'll never be a factor".

I don't for a moment believe the bug will manifest itself, particularly with Bush winning both the Electoral vote and the popular vote. But had the popular vote gone sharply in the other direction, the one-vote margin in the Electoral College just might have been an issue.

Read Jeff Greenfield's The People's Choice, a brilliant bit of political satire revolving about what might happen if members of the Electoral College decided they had legitimate reasons to "do what the people meant, not what they said".

Prediction: If third parties continue to grow in popularity with the electorate, expect to see Electoral College reform on the legislative agenda in the 2004 and 2008 elections... and expect to see it benefiting the third parties, entrenched interests notwithstanding.

God does not play dice with the universe. Albert Einstein

If you vote for a 3rd party candidate (or for anyone but your state's winner), it doesn't really matter to you whether your vote gets thrown away at the state level or at the nationwide level. The point is to throw away as few votes as possible. In an election for a single executive position like president, that means that the winner should have some level of majority support.

There are websites and web pages that point out the valid public interests served by the electoral college system. My own point is simpler: at worst, the electoral college only distorts the popular will by a few percentage points. Anyone with more than 52% of the vote is pretty much guaranteed a win, and the cases where a majority candidate loses are extremely rare. Therefore, fighting something written into the federal constitution seems to me to be quixotic.

But our current system routinely throws away the votes of anyone who votes for a minor party. This is at least 7 percent every single election and would be much higher if people voted their conscience. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV, the system used by ICANN) has the power to change this. It is also a viable political issue (local issues in Vermont, Washington, and New Mexico have put it into the realm of feasibility in these states; and once one state switches it could become a trend).

[technical note: if, due to IRV, a "minor" party candidate took a single state, that state's electors would see that their candidate had lost nationwide and vote their state's second choice among the stronger candidates. There are a few minor legal changes necessary to facilitate this process.]

In summary: this questioner's concern for proportionality is important for legislatures a non-starter for executive positions like the presidency. They should either fight for IRV on the presidential scene, or move to state or local politics and fight for proportionally representative legislative bodies (many, many countries do this, and it would be a huge step forward. Americans who argue against proportional legislatures as deadlock-prone are usually confused and really arguing against parliamentary selection of the executive.)

Physicist Alan Natapoff has demonstrably proved that, mathematically speaking, the Electoral College is superior to a normal popular vote in that the Electoral College actually increases the likelihood that a single voter will turn the election. There are good reasons for keeping the current system.