Slashdot Mirror
Electoral College Abolition Amendment and IRV Bill
scoobrs writes "Two bills, H.J.R. 109 and H.R. 5293, were introduced in the US House by Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL). The first is a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college. The latter is a bill providing for instant runoff voting in all federal elections by 2008."
I'll be sure to write my Congressman to vote against both!
Canthros
Why must it be *IRV*? Why can't it be condorcet or something a little less flakey than IRV?
Reformists are fixated on IRV because that's what the public will actually agree to. Systems like Condorcet's Method voting are technically superior but use a lot of math and are complicated to explain. If you can't explain it in a thirty second sound bite you won't get able to get enough popular support to get it passed.
The other reason to support IRV is that IRV is a stepping-stone to Condorcet's Method. Current voting procedures and equipment are not able to support IRV or Condorcet's Method. Once we implement IRV we will have the procedures and voting equipment necessary to use any number of superior vote counting schemes, including Condorcet's Method. So by introducing IRV we will have built the framework to allow a move to Condorcet's Method. Then all we have to do is convince the public to support Condorcet's Method--and since we already have the equipment, no one can complain that it will be too expensive to switch.
"The Electoral College is so 18th century," read a protester's T-shirt slogan before the Republican National Convention. Since the 2000 election dispute, serious people have sounded the same theme, including New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who after Al Gore's defeat called for direct popular election of the President. But since America has survived as a democratic republic for more than two centuries, we're inclined to think the Founders got it right.
The rap against the Electoral College is that it's undemocratic. As one recent newspaper editorial complained, "The majority does not rule." Strictly speaking, that's not true. The Constitution requires a majority of electors to choose a President; otherwise, the House decides, which hasn't happened since 1824. True, the popular majority doesn't rule, but only one Presidential candidate--Samuel Tilden, in the disputed election of 1876--has ever lost while exceeding 50% of the popular vote.
Under direct popular election, the majority often would not rule either. In six postwar elections--1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996 and 2000--no candidate had a popular majority. If it's an outrage against majority rule that President Bush was elected while receiving only 47.9% of the popular vote, would it be that much less so if Mr. Gore had won with 48.4%? And what about Bill Clinton, who mustered a mere 43% of the popular vote in 1992?
This points to one of the Electoral College's great virtues: Under normal circumstances, it strengthens the Presidency by transforming a popular plurality into a majority, or a majority into a bigger majority. Mr. Clinton's 370-168 electoral victory over George H.W. Bush in 1992 put to rest any doubt about the new President's legitimacy. In every election since 1828, when popular balloting for Presidential electors became the rule almost everywhere, the winner's proportion of electoral votes has been higher than his share of the popular vote. Only three times--in 1876, 1888 and 2000--have the popular and electoral votes diverged.
Direct popular election would also vastly increase the risk of corruption and electoral disputes. With every vote competing directly against every other vote, dishonest politicians everywhere would have an incentive to engage in fraud on behalf of their parties. And a close race would make the 2000 Florida brouhaha look like a kerfuffle. Every one of the nation's 3,066 counties could expect to be overrun by lawyers demanding recounts.
Similar objections apply to a mischievous measure that will appear on Colorado's ballot this November. It would divide the state's nine electoral votes according to each candidate's proportion of the popular vote, so that if, as expected, Mr. Bush carries the Centennial State, John Kerry would still pick up three or four votes.
Supporters argue this is a more democratic way of doing things. But if this system had been in effect nationwide in 2000, Mr. Gore would have edged out Mr. Bush, 269-263, with Ralph Nader picking up six electoral votes, all in large states. This would have thrown the election to the House, where Mr. Bush presumably would have won--unless Mr. Gore managed to manufacture a plurality in Florida, which would have swung one electoral vote and increased his total to 270, a bare majority.
But Mr. Bush could have waged his own challenges to the vote in places like New Mexico, where he was 366 votes short of a plurality, and Hawaii, where an extra 137 votes would have given him an additional elector under the proposed Colorado system. Columnist George Will has calculated that nationwide proportional allocation of electors would have thrown the elections of 1948, 1968 and 1992 to the House.
The Colorado initiative is a transparently partisan effort to give Mr. Kerry a few additional electoral votes, and Coloradans, even those who support the Democrat, would be foolish to back a measure that would diminish their state's influence by taking most of its electoral votes out of play.
The effort to institute direct pop
Some federal republic! When states like California pass medical marijuana laws that work only inside California borders, but the federal DEA goes in and busts participants in a system which is legal in California, that completely undermines states rights. When the executive branch is proposing Constitutional amendments to prevent state courts from deciding what kinds of marriages can occur within their state, that completely undermines states rights.
The federal government has its hands in everything. They set policy these days by taxing the people of each state heavily and then giving money back to the states based on compliance with federal regulations (see also: speed limits, drinking ages, school policies, etc etc).
If you're going to argue that the U.S. is actually a functional federal republic, I'm going to say the facts don't support that assertion. In fact, your own post suggests that it is Congress' job to develop better voting systems. Wrong. The states are the sole owner of voting within their state. There is no such thing as a federal election under our current system, so why should the federal government be so directly involved in the voting process?
I believe I could explain IRV to 50+% of the US population, and I think they could understand it. I can't say the same about Condorcet. This is a case where "even better yet" is the enemy of "better". Personally, I don't believe we could sell the US population on Condorcet or Approval at this time, due to *perceived* complexity. At the same time, I believe there is a chance for IRV. But if the proponents of voting reform get all tied up in IRV vs Condorcet vs Approval, or some other scheme, nothing will get done, at all.
That said, I believe what we really need is a two-step process. First get IRV in place, simply because we probably could, as a first-level reform. Once the American voter is used to it, and sees that the sky hasn't fallen, perhaps 20 years down the road, go for something better. A land that renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries won't trust its voting to a system with a name like Condorcet. (I need to learn more about other schemes. I did check your link, though I don't necessarily agree with everything I read there.) Personally, I believe IRV *is* an improvement over simple majority, and that most of the stones cast against it are odd corner-cases.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Current voting procedures and equipment are not able to support IRV or Condorcet's Method.
but they can currently support approval. as someone else noted, once you get down to the local elections, some of them are already doing approval voting.
Systems like Condorcet's Method voting are technically superior but use a lot of math and are complicated to explain. If you can't explain it in a thirty second sound bite you won't get able to get enough popular support to get it passed.
Rank your candidates in order of preference, just like IRV. You are allowed to have ties.
If a candidate would beat any other candidate in a one-on-one race, that candidate will win.
If there is a group of candidates such that any candidate in the group would beat any candidate outside the group in a one-on-one race, then a candidate in that group will win.
That's about 20 seconds. (10 seconds if you leave out the last sentence).
I agree that IRV should make the process of switching to Condorcet simpler, though, and at least it's better than plurality.
Democrats think the Electoral College cost them the presidency. We better change the constitution. Republicans think they have a potential president in a popular Austrian. We better change the constitution. 3rd parties want more votes. Better go PR, IRV, or some other method that lets people vote without "throw away" syndrome. I'm a Libertarian, and I say "Just say no" to these knee-jerk reactions. I feel the same about redistricting. We shouldn't allow ANYONE to attempt to engineer favorable outcomes. They never turn out the way we expect any way. And I say better the devil you know. As soon as we Libertarians stop running marginal candidates, more voters will be convinced to vote for us without throwing away their votes. Despite our crappy ballot access laws, we manage to do alright. When we lose, it's our fault. Let's stop blaming a system that is not half-bad and stop trying to engineer new structural outcomes. It always seems to make the mess bigger.
I agree mostly with this. However, I think an even better option is if every state did a split up of its electora votes in the way that Main does and Colorado is considering.
On a side note, it is very good that congress realizes this is an issue and is amending it in the usual way. We are only two states away from a constitutional convention, and that is a dangerous and scary thing for many reasons.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
1) IRV isn't better than plurality, it's worse.
2) "Just like IRV" means that you require the whole thirty second soundbite explaining IRV to happen first, so you exceeded your thirty seconds that way. Actually I think IRV will fail based on that criterion too - thirty seconds is longer than any quote I've seen on the news from any of the presidential candidates, or on any other topic for that matter. I can't remember seeing anything as complex as IRV *ever* explained on the news.
3) Approval voting: "Just like today except you get to vote for as many candidates as you like". That's less than a *5* second soundbite. Why go to all the trouble of explaing IRV in the first place, when (a) it sucks and (b) approval is so much simpler to explain?
I wouldn't mind the electoral system, if there was also a REQUIREMENT to vote and maintain your citizen ship.
I'd rather see the entire populous vote for a gibbering idiot than see less than a quarter of it vote for the same idiot.
~Donald
~Donald / Just RTFM
Though I agree there are better things than IRV (approval voting is my favorite), IRV is better than what we have now. It allows 3rd parties to be get almost 1/3 of the vote before it screws up and reverts to the equivalent of popular vote, so at least there is a measure of what support those 3rd parties have.
Actually, it would turn every state into a potential 'florida situiation'. Recounts would be forced in all states where a relativly small number of votes could turn an electoral vote.
I am quite puzzled about the reactions I read here.
I remember reading here that the vast majority of slashdotters think the current system for electing the president of the USA is bad. Some complains that voting third party is more or less a waste. Others complain that their home state is so democrat/republican that their vote for the other party won't count. Others complain about the winner take all present in most states.
Yet, when someone proposes a bill that tries to adress these problems, people here bitch that it is not perfect.
Althrough I am not American (or maybe because I am not), I think this is a step in the right direction.
First, about the abolishion of electoral college. I've read many comments complaining that it would lessen the power of small population states. I fail to see how it is a problem. Look at Europe. Most countries in Europe directly elect their president, without consideration about the region where one votes. Yet, you don't see in Europe the tyranny of the cities. Hell, even with this system, the agricultural people have a political clout much higher than their number would indicate. They are not oppressed by cities resident people.
A citizen is a citizen, and I fail to see why some should get more power in elections than others. Isn't the definition of a democracy (or a constitutional republic) that each citizen be equal ? Equality means same power in elections, me think.
Second, about IRV. Sure IRV is technically inferior to Condorcet. But Condorcet will not be a way for elections. The vast majority of people don't understand it. Even the short explanations some slashdotters proposed are not simple. If you don't believe me, try to explain Condorcet to some 85 years old grandma, or to someone that dropped school at 14 because they didn't catch maths. These people won't trust Condorcet, they find it too convulted. The fact that it is mathematically superior doesn't get in the line for these people.
OTOH, IRV can be understood by everyone. Sure it's buggy. But so is the current system. Remember, this is a proposed bill, and representatives will discuss it. That means that it may be corrected to allow more sane methods.
Remember people, we are discussing two bills ( *two* bills, even if you hate IRV, you can approve the dropping of electoral college), and will be amended and corrected multiple times before passing to final vote. It seems silly to me to oppose them.
Why not try to be positive, and write your representatives that the idea of the bills are good, and then proposing alternate voting methods ? If you just oppose them, don't complain latter when the only choice you get is a republicrat and a demoblican. Instead, support the senator that proposed the bills, and encourage their perfection.
America's presidential election is the worst of all presidential elections in first world. Multiple (and sometimes brain-dead) voting scheme, near-impossibility for third parties to get votes, people in democratic states who can't show their support for republicans, people in republican states who can't show their support for democrats, election determined by Florida and a few other key swing states, people having votes that count twice just because they live in a small state, etc...
That should be corrected, and even if these bills are not perfect (I don't like IRV either), they sure are a step in the right direction.
What about stopping bitching that the whole world is dumb and accepting that sometimes, to get a good system, you have to be patient and support a temporary solution if it is the right direction ? This is how the real world works, you know.