Math of elections says voters win with 'winner take all'

[jody]

Math of elections says voters win with 'winner take all'

In an op-ed, "Stop plan to diminish Marylanders' voting power," that appeared April 5 in the Baltimore Sun, Natapoff urged Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley not to sign a bill that, if passed by enough states, would bypass the Electoral College and elect the president by raw popular vote. Natapoff contends that the proposed legislation is unconstitutional and that the change would destroy the individual voter's national voting power.

"Small numbers of votes will never turn a national raw-vote election in our lifetime, yet a mere 537 votes in Florida turned the election of 2000," Natapoff wrote in the op-ed. "When close states vote on a winner-take-all basis, their individual voters have large national leverage. Without that leverage, we would all be equally impotent--an irony that would give equality a bad name."
* * * * * * * * * *
Small states cancel each other in a close election. The greater coherence of large states under winner-take-all, Natapoff claims, gives them much greater national power per vote--in proportion to the square root of their size--than the same number of electoral votes in small states. That, he believes, is why senatorial electoral votes have worked for two centuries and are still needed.

In 2000, he says, California cast half as many popular votes, but had the same net electoral vote impact, as the 29 smallest states combined-even counting their 58 senatorial electoral votes. Without senatorial electoral votes, Natapoff says, small states will not have their fair share of voting power per vote. What is worse, he believes, eliminating senatorial votes without a Constitutional amendment breaks the promise of the Constitution (Article V) that no state will be deprived of them without its consent.

[yourout]

1. The current system makes in MUCH MUCH easier to steal an election.

[valerief]

2. I never understood this.

<<Without senatorial electoral votes, Natapoff says, small states will not have their fair share of voting power per vote. >>

Why should a state have a "fair share" over an individual? If 20 times as many people in the country want a certain candidate (pre-filtered by a party, anyway) than the people who want another candidate, why shouldn't the most people get who they want? Yes, the less populated states have wheat, but we buy our wheat from China now anyway. Why wouldn't the winning prez care about the wheat and corn states anyway? Of course, he/she would. So what's the problem?

[jody]

4. I believe it's a state's right issue. Hopefully another DUer can explain. n/t

[valerief]

6. Why should a state get more rights than the majority of the people? nt

[jody]

8. Our govt is a constitutional democracy with minority rights protected against the majority. n/t

[PATRICK]

3. Interesting downside

is much less scrutiny on local discrepancies especially with unaccountable votes, challenges(nationwide recount!), big media ease of forecasting and legitimizing quickly before states have even closed on the West Coast.

I firmly accept that overall it is correct that the changes- as part of package- would be great. When done quickly, just before an historic election, a chaotic battle of reform not safeguarding the vote especially if attention and accountability is diluted nationwide, with one or more unpopular candidates able to quickly bask in a hold-your-nose mandate, there is injected a few uncertainties and dangers. In other words, this is not the ideal time schedule and way to bring about an undeniable good result. Instead of confronting fraud state by state a simple strategy is employed that may boost a predictable Dem victory(and make it simple for those unpopular candidates who can simply game the plurality(voters preferring Dems, mass media and money for the GOP). Without other reforms this might be a nightmare "solution". You would have poorer Dems trolling the big cities fighting vote suppression while the GOP takes the high media road and undercuts them everywhere else. Any crooked state organization would have a field day to do as they please, devil take the fair-minded, vying to rack up local pluralities for clout. Today with large amounts of unchecked abuses that are mostly all GOP or corporate, that is a definite. In the future a national plurality election could be ideal and natural.

So this time, like the bubble-headed rush to accept touchscreen vapor ballots, the clever boys upstairs are making an end run around the electoral college, a stampede or a confusing minority that will shift the entire battleground strategy to fewer states(and in whose favor?). I think as well that opposition in this time frame is critical to picking who goes for the national plurality take all system in 2008- and who does not. Who will oppose? Most likely the GOP. Where? Where it will most benefit them, a complex but fairly controllable gaming of the reform in progress.

I see absolutely no caution in the enthusiasm being pumped in to offset the simple reasons why states can feel big about changing things suddenly like this. An easy, feel good fix, an end run and somewhat blind to consequences in the short. All the GOP can care about this election is the short run. It is one thing to make an end run around corruption we can't or won't confront, it is another not to recognize how frauds can again dupe the Dems on strategy.

I might be wrong on the results as they will turn out during this ploy(if the courts don't abort this along the way or worse, after the election), but it is wrong to get all aglow about a big plus for Dems that simultaneously evades the horrors of the present scammed system at the ballot box and in the idiot box. You can't stop a stampede even if the principles should be expected to be more cynical and wary. If we don't go over a cliff doesn't mean it was 100%,indisputably wise.

[jody]

5. I understand. Big states tend to have large cities that represent urban interests and small states

tend to represent rural interests, e.g. New York versus Wyoming.

That dichotomy manifests itself with issues that tend to polarize voters, e.g. the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

IMO it's difficult sometimes to reach a compromise position that results in federal laws on issues that pit urban interests against rural interests.

Again, IMO that's the real promise of state's rights leaving each person the freedom of choice to leave one state and go to another that has a life style they find attractive.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

7. thank you. this sounds great initially, but the details...

If I understand this, it isn't exactly what it appears to be.

There is a "pact" with other states, and its just not that
straight forward.

Also note that "Fair Vote" is pushing this, and these are the same
folks that pushed IRV across the country.

IRV is not well suited for elections that have from 25-50 contests,
but is reasonable to use in countries that have one contest and
20-50 candidates or parties running for that office.

Fair Vote had invited Dr. Rebecca Mercuri to speak at one of their events
in PA a year or so ago, and when she had questions about IRV,
they "un-invited" her. (After having her name in the promotions of the event).

If we can't understand a "reform" well, and if we can't ask questions,
then we need to be very very careful.

Also, I am not sure I want to see California turn red.