wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Two states, Maine and Nebraska, select one elector within each congressional district by popular vote, and additionally select the remaining two electors by the aggregate, statewide popular vote. This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1992. This seem more democratic

We also need a larger Congress of six to ten thousands of representatives, one that represents the 300 million people.

Please visit
www.thirty-thousand.org
www.PublicLaw62-5.org

One of the reasons I *DETEST* politics is the gamesmanship epitomized by the (current) Electoral College system. Thanks to today's program, I've learned that there is hope for change! Apparently my own state, NJ, is on board with a more reasonable approach. I had no idea. Maybe a better awareness campaign is in order...

Re: Steve-from-Richmond's post #14:

An expert on all the alternative voting systems is Steven Brams, professor of politics at NYU. http://politics.as.nyu.edu/object/stevenbrams.html In his 1982 book, "Approval Voting", he explains why he believes that system to be ultimately superior to any of the others.

To Alan [10]: Approval voting is one of a number of alternative voting systems, along with instant run-off, Condorcet, and Borda, any one of which would be an improvement on the current "cast one vote for your single favorite candidate" (or, more accurately, "cast one vote for your favorite of the candidates that the media have told you have a chance of winning.") I urge interested people to research all of these.

Borda, for example, says that if there are (say) 5 candidates, you rank them all, and your top candidate gets 4 points, your second choice gets 3 points, ... and your last choice no points. Whichever candidate gets the most points wins. Borda tends to reward broadly-acceptable "consensus" candidates, even if they're not anybody's first choice.

Condorcet is a little harder to explain, and it tends to favor more polarizing candidates who are the first choice of a large number of voters, even if they're also the last choice of many other voters. Instant runoff is even more favorable to candidates that get a lot of first-choice votes: your second choice only matters if your first choice was unpopular with the rest of the voters, and your last choice seldom makes any difference at all.

Brian, you might want to host a round-table discussion some time of all of these alternatives.

To Robert[1]: The proposal doesn't eliminate the electoral college, but rather makes it irrelevant in practice. Eliminating the electoral college would require a Constitutional amendment, passed by 2/3 of the states, and that won't happen. This proposal, however, requires a state law in states that comprise a majority of the electoral college, and that COULD easily happen -- a third of the states would suffice.

This proposal should benefit any state which has a large population, because those states are proportionally underweighted in the electoral college. It should also benefit any state which is considered "non-swing" -- either a Republican lock or a Democratic lock -- which currently don't get any attention from Presidential candidates. Both New York and Texas meet both of those criteria.

The main criticism of the proposal is recounts: at present we hold recounts (for Presidential elections) only when a particular state's vote count is extremely close, and even then only if that state's electoral votes might change the outcome. Under a national popular vote, ANY vote in the country could affect the outcome, so a recount could be called for anywhere. The criterion for recounts would have to change from "is the vote close enough to change the outcome?" to "is there evidence of significant voting irregularities?" That would take some significant rethinking of legislation. For example, routine recounts of a small random sample (say, 1%) of EVERY election would provide evidence as to whether a larger recount is necessary.

The electoral college and winner takes all system assumes that our primary commonality is based on geography, not on other issues (like environmental or healthcare policy). That is why in Congress, where is is all geographic, so much money gets spent on little projects that don't contribute to policy objectives.

the 435 cap is even more undemocratic than the elector college

Beyond Hendrick Hertzberg's excellent idea, I think that the adoption of approval voting, a system in which each voter can vote for as many or as few candidates for each office as he/she wishes, would be very healthy for our democracy.

See http://www.approvalvoting.org/ for an explanation and for a list of the advantages of this approach.

You envy his speech writers? So far they've done a piss-poor job of writing anything original. They constantly recycle his older rhetoric and ape word-for-word speeches from Bush.

Given that this is a process that is not near to being finished, would the state assembly being making a decision now about how New Yorkers years down the line decide to have their vote counted? Should the assembly of today tell us NYers how our vote will be counted 20 years from now?

YES, YES, YES. Finally it would be one person, one vote. The electorate would finally be treated as adults.

I would say yes, 1 man 1 vote

What's the gimmick Mr. Hertzberg?
There's always a gimmick.

Lou Costello: "But I only see two bananas."

Mr Bachiagaloop: "You gotta one bananna and a two bananna. One and two make a three banannas.”

Trust no one.

What about the scenario of a candidate promising anything they want to, say, coastal states. Seems like a popular vote lets a candidate be more one-sided in the hopes of garnering 51 percent of the vote.

in the mean time NY and other states could split their electoral vote among the winners of each congressional district like maine and nebraska do

http://www.270towin.com/blog/new-for-2008/maine-nebraska-split-electoral-votes

People complain about the Electoral College when their preferred candidate loses, and it's the greatest thing since sliced bread when their preferred candidate wins.

How can this be done? I wasn't aware other states were doing this and how do they get around a constitutional statute? Wasn't the electoral college established in the constitution? I certainly am for elimination of the electoral college.