Electoral College reform

[J Cullen]

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Pollak" <mpollak at panix.com>
>
>>  The electoral college, due to its voting formula, gives disproportionate
>>  voting power to small states.
>
>-Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I can see, this isn't true. It
>-is true of Senate, because there there the votes are about dividing up the
>-pie.
>
>I don't disagree with many of your general points, but here's the
>mathematics of the electoral college.  Each state has a certain number of
>votes based on its proportion of the population PLUS two votes for each
>state.
>
>Thus Wyoming's population has votes per capita equivalent to California's
>per capita voting power  PLUS two votes.
>
>So subtract the extra two votes per state, and Wyoming voters would have one
>electoral college vote to California's 56 (I think) votes, roughly
>proportionate voting power.  But with the electoral college, Wyoming's
>voters triple their proportionate voting strength.  While not great power
>either way, such small states recognize that they would be almost completely
>ignored if Wyoming had only as much electoral power as a city like Oakland
>or Jersey City (two cities where I've lived with similar populations to that
>state).
>
>So they won't ever vote to undermine that power, unless as people note, the
>situation is so revolutionary that it's a pretty minor item on the list of
>revolutionary changes.  So yes, if we organize the power for a mass
>constitutional convention to remake the economic structure of the country,
>we can throw it in at that point, but I just don't think it's a winning
>electoral issue in the short term.
>
>The most promising reform in my mind is instant-runoffs, which would allow
>third party messages to get out without threatening greater-evil victories.
>San Francisco has it on the upcoming ballot for local elections and would be
>a good thing.  Although the unintended consequence will be that it will
>assist non-party moderates in redominating the political landscape.  But
>that's not a terrible thing-- the political spectrum will actually end up
>looking more like European parliamentary systems, dominated by moderates in
>the middle with perpetural coalitions, while not foreclosing the election of
>candidates on the extremes.
>
>-- Nathan Newman

A number of bright progressives have advocated a constitutional 
convention. I wonder why they think they'd end up with anything 
better than the one we have now. For one thing, we'd never end up 
with another Bill of Rights, which is why many right wingers also 
would like to see a constitutional convention.

I agree with Nathan that a more achievable reform is instant runoff 
voting. Proportional representation also is a nice try, although the 
two major parties oppose these reforms because they would create 
opportunities for minor political parties. The same goes for public 
financing of elections. In Massachusetts, voters overwhelmingly 
approved a "Clean Election" initiative to provide voluntary public 
financing for elections, but the Democratic legislature has refused 
to fund it because they realize it will only serve to create funded 
opponents.

So you have to figure out how to convince Democrats that it is in 
their interest to support electoral reforms in a way that does not 
allow the election of Republicans in the meantime.

-- Jim Cullen