Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nuchat!sugar!ficc!jeffd From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: Re: Electoral Systems (Was: Who Controls the Network?) Summary: Notes... Message-ID: <2662@ficc.uu.net> Date: 8 Jan 89 11:55:06 GMT References: <2111@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> Organization: Ferranti International Controls Lines: 100 In article <2111@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk>, nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) writes: > It seems absurd that ALL of the votes > cast by a state in the Electoral College should go to ONE candidate when it > would be a very simple matter to distribute them to the candidates in the > same proportions as the popular vote. But why mess about with an Electoral > College anyway? Why not use the popular vote? (1) Actually, the Federal Constitution does not require the winner-take- all system, or any other. Each State Legislature makes the rules for selection of electors --- and as late as 1860, South Carolina didn't even *have* a popular vote. Nowadays, I believe, Maine distributes its 4 electoral votes thus: 2 (representing the Senate seats, of course) for the first-place finisher Statewide; 1 for each Federal House district carried. Since there are 2 such areas, the Maine vote could be 4-0, 3-1, or 2-2 ... or, conceivably, 2-1-1. (2) While I personally *would* vote to do away with the Electoral College, it does have two pluses: [a] it reminds us that we live in a federal, not a unitary, system --- and until political power can be abolished, splitting it is important in a practical sense, so I see some value in reminding folks that it's supposed to be split here in these overly-united States; [b] it's the only reason the Establishment press will pay any attention at all to alternative candidates. Had it not been for the EC, John Anderson would have received virtually no coverage at all in 1980, because everyone knew he would finish third. But since, at first, there were several States that looked like they might give him a plurality, thus perhaps forcing Congress to get involved (the House would pick the Prez, the Senate the Veep), he gained some attention for his campaign and his views (I don't share most of his views, but think he was entitled to fair play from the press -- and that the voters were entitled to know where he stood, so they could make an informed choice). For those who think the two-party system is sacred, it is interesting to note that the Federal Constitution itself takes the idea of a multi-candidate race quite calmly, as the House picks the President from among the top ***three*** EC votegetters. > > I like the NOTA idea but I doubt that many voters would bother to go to the > trouble of turning up to vote for it. I thought that it was possible for a > voter to add a candidate of his/her own choice to the ballot paper in US > elections anyway. Am I wrong? (1) Keep in mind that we fill many offices at once in U. S. elections! John Citizen might be totally turned off with all candidates for Office A, but want to vote for someone for Office B. He could then go ahead and express both preferences. However, I think there *are* many who, even in a one-race election, might go to express their dismay or disgust via NOTA. (2) Write-in votes are *not* permitted in every State (despite a Federal Supreme Court ruling that they must be), some States that permit it make it difficult (more on this in a sec), and many States don't count the ones cast. As for difficulty, back when we used machines, the slot for write-ins was very small, and often the candidate's name had to be written in one particular form only (for instace, in 1964, in a Florida gubernatorial vote, Robert King High's name *had* to be written in R. K. High, or the State refused to count it -- despite that fact that this was *not* the way he used his name when he was on the ballot). Also, Florida at one time required that, for a Presidential write in to be valid, what had to be written in (in a space SMALLER THAN 2 sq in) were the names of the Electoral College candidates. In 1976, Florida had *17* electoral votes! Now it has more, but some of Florida's gone to computer voting, so I don't know what system they use for write-ins. Anyway, in 1976, I complied with the law, and wrote in the names of all 17 electors for Roger MacBride, the Libertarian candidate ... and the weasels at the Elections Bureau -still- didn't count my vote. I called the ACLU, but they told me they were spending all their time that year keeping people out of the electric chair. Since my principles forbid murder or rape, I was not a candidate for the chair, and thus was out of luck. But whenever you see Roger MacBride's vote totals in a footnote somewhere, add one to the figure! Jeff Daiell (opinions my own until taxed away) INDEPENDENCE FOR TEXAS! -- "Will you still love me tomorrow?" -- The Shirelles