Hi **Tranquilis **,
Since there is basically only one thing to be won, the Presidency, it has to be winner take all. But I have yet to see any reason why a “winner” should take anything until s/he has won. I don’t see the value in creating swing districts. How does empowering others help me?
While we are at it, what value would you place on campaign visits to a district? So the candidate comes and talks to the locals. What are the locals buying with their powerful votes?
Getting back to the first question, to whatever extent that the extra political clout helps some areas, how does that benefit the people in other districts?
I’m not sure why you think that breaking the momentum of a candidate is beneficial.
The more popular support for our leader the better, I should think.
I am trying to be precise but somehow “permanantly disenfranchised” slipped out. That phrase is a bit strong as we are discussing a single election here, not the entire political process. More simply I was referring to those who knew in advance that their prefered candidate wouldn’t win their district.
As I previously pointed out to DSYoungEsq, there is a difference between “losing a vote” in the sense that your candidate was outvoted and “losing a vote” in the sense that your vote is taken from you and cast for someone else.
On the cheeky elf, using the votes as they were cast in 1992- he wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near a hundred electoral votes under your proposal. He recieved more than a quarter of the votes in only six states: MAINE (30.4%) UTAH (27.3%) , WYOMING (25.6%) , KANSAS (27.0%) , NEVADA (26.2%) , and MONTANA (26.1%). He finished first in none and therefor wouldn’t get any of the “senatoral” votes. We know that he didn’t win either election district in Maine. Wyoming and Montana are only one district so no Perot votes there. In Utah, Bush won 43.4% of the vote. I’d say that Kansas and Nevada would have been Perot’s best hope to gain an electoral vote under your system. I can’t be sure without more info ( I am using this data ) but I’m guessing that he wouldn’t have gotten a single vote. Certainly no more than a handful.
Even given that Perot would have campaigned more strongly in certain swing areas, it seems unlikely to me that he would get 100 votes. The other guys would be doing the same. But even if he did get a bunch, that wouldn’t have helped him much because that just would throw it into the House. Since he had no conressional backing he would not have been a factor beyond that point. The Congress is really the place to build a new national party.
There are other EC schemes that could be better for third parties. Assigning electors based on the percentage of votes in the state, for instance. ( Though it beats me what would be the fairest way to do so. ) In my last post I misunderstood your proposal to mean that the first and 2nd place finisher would both recieve a “senatoral” vote. Under that scheme, Perot would have gained a couple votes.
A philosophical problem with third parties is that if one gets big enough that would mean that the Presidency would usually end up being decided in the House of Representatives. This removes the question even further from the people.
No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. - John Marshall ( McCulloch v. Maryland )