Why *not* "The Lesser of Two evils"?

[General Zod]

I'm not following this at all. If you went with a purely popular vote, then even if you got literally 100% of the electorate in those states, you wouldn't have enough votes. Even if we assume that those four states do contain >50% of the votes, well, let's compare how it goes down between the two systems:

Electoral college: as long as you get >50% in just these four states, congratulations; you're done. You can ignore or even spit on every last other person out there.

Popular vote: if you get >50% of the vote there, well, good job. You're halfway to being elected. Time to go to the rest of the states to pick up more votes.

In the case of a popular vote, getting 50% of the vote in, say, Alaska would be worth significantly less compared to getting 50% of the vote in California or New York (just compare the state census). You're looking at purely campaigning in areas with the greatest population density in this instance, and ignoring smaller states altogether.

[Tatterdemalion]

Well the debate surrounding electoral college is about the point where it becoms apparent I'm just a Brit trying to dictate how you yanks run your political system. Personally if I were really into states rights I'd probably want to go further than simply giving smaller states what amounts to extra voting power and question why the president has certain powers in the first place, but that's a topic unto itself.

Alternatively, rather than a single runoff you could actually go with my original gaffe and conduct the election via a Single Tranferable Vote system and still keep the basic Electoral College itself. It's just that now you'd rank your preferred choices in order of preferance and no elector would get by with less than a 51% majority. Unlikely to ever happen but it would mean third party candidates could run without essentially amounting to a wasted vote.

[Coyote]

Actually, I like that idea, but then I'm also open-minded about a Parliamentary system as well (although I fear we'd end up with a religious party of some sort that would be a constant king-maker people had to kiss up to... like the paralyzation seen in the Israeli Knesset with Shas).

But, yeah, anything like Parliamentary form, or the top-three-choice idea would be "un-American" and viewed with suspoicion because that's what "them thar commie-pinko-socialist Europeans do", etc. Like I mentioned in another thread, most Americans would rather pay $500.00 a month for private insurance of questionable reliability than dump insurance and pay $200.00 a month in taxes for a guaranteed health-care system-- because the extra taxes are "socialist" and that is somehow unacceptable.

But then, I'd also like to list government programs that tax dollars are being spent on with each tax form every year and have voters decide which ones they think are most worhtwhile-- "put a 1 next to the program you think is most important, place a 2 by the program you think is next most important, etc." It would not necessarily be binding, but at least it would be a once-a-year survey about what taxpayeres see as priorities instead of relying on asstastic polls; a quick way for representatives to see where the taxpayers want resources to go.

But, well, that's just me.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

In the case of a popular vote, getting 50% of the vote in, say, Alaska would be worth significantly less compared to getting 50% of the vote in California or New York (just compare the state census). You're looking at purely campaigning in areas with the greatest population density in this instance, and ignoring smaller states altogether.

But, similarly, getting the electoral votes from Alaska is worth significantly less than California. It is not quite as wide a gap due to the fact that smaller states have more weight (up to Wyoming having approximately three times the voting power per capita than California), but the issue is still there. And since outside of Maine or Nebraska, every vote between 0% and 50% is wasted on a state you're going to lose and everything between 50% and 100% is wasted on a state you've already won, that would, I think, skew campaigning patterns.

We already have evidence that, currently, campaigning is done disproportionately in "swing states" (link goes to Wikipedia, but I hope it's acceptable here). I would think it would be considered better for campaigning to be weighted instead towards centers of population so that the issues of the greatest numbers of people were being addressed. A system where one vote was worth the same as any other, no matter which state it comes from, would seem to give that result more than our current system.

[General Zod]

But, similarly, getting the electoral votes from Alaska is worth significantly less than California. It is not quite as wide a gap due to the fact that smaller states have more weight (up to Wyoming having approximately three times the voting power per capita than California), but the issue is still there. And since outside of Maine or Nebraska, every vote between 0% and 50% is wasted on a state you're going to lose and everything between 50% and 100% is wasted on a state you've already won, that would, I think, skew campaigning patterns.

The electoral college isn't exactly fair, but I think it's a better system than deciding things purely on the popular vote. Perhaps something similar to the primaries where the candidates are awarded electorates proportionately rather than purely the winner take all would be a superior system.

We already have evidence that, currently, campaigning is done disproportionately in "swing states" (link goes to Wikipedia, but I hope it's acceptable here). I would think it would be considered better for campaigning to be weighted instead towards centers of population so that the issues of the greatest numbers of people were being addressed. A system where one vote was worth the same as any other, no matter which state it comes from, would seem to give that result more than our current system.

I don't think so, because again it means candidates would only have to concentrate their campaigning on high density population centers, and it would result in a lot of voters feeling ignored. It already happens to a degree with the current model, but I can't help but figure it would be much worse using just the popular vote method.

[Coyote]

... I would think it would be considered better for campaigning to be weighted instead towards centers of population so that the issues of the greatest numbers of people were being addressed. A system where one vote was worth the same as any other, no matter which state it comes from, would seem to give that result more than our current system.

Like I mentioned, it is far from perfect but instead of concentrating everything in 2 or 3 swing states of absolute influence and ignoring the rest, the Electoral College at least makes a candidate consider 8 or 9 states of varying influence, while ignoring the rest.

Heh, I guess the very system itself is, indeed, the lesser of two evils...

[haard]

I've never thought about it, but the current system means that your vote is worth more if you are from Alaska than if you are from D.C. One man, approximately one vote!

[Tatterdemalion]

But, yeah, anything like Parliamentary form, or the top-three-choice idea would be "un-American" and viewed with suspoicion because that's what "them thar commie-pinko-socialist Europeans do", etc. Like I mentioned in another thread, most Americans would rather pay $500.00 a month for private insurance of questionable reliability than dump insurance and pay $200.00 a month in taxes for a guaranteed health-care system-- because the extra taxes are "socialist" and that is somehow unacceptable.

Not so much that, in my experience, as the two parties being united in their refusal to pass through legislation that would only benefit third party voters, especially if voters running off and voting for minority candidates or staying at home was part of what got them victory in the first place. Same in the UK, the only party with any genuine interest in election reform is, funnily enough, the third party in our three party system. (Although the fact that our executive and legislature aren't seperated adds another dimension to that issue.)