Balkinization: Rational reform of the electoral college

Comments:

It may be, unfortunately, that politics is the art of the possible. An instant-runoff system would require a constitutional amendment--which as you have pointed out so often just ends the conversation.

Moreover, most of the problems you and he point out with the proposed compact exist under the current system, viz: electing popular-vote plurality-winners; lack of a remedy for faithless electors; inconsistent listing requirements between states; locking out third parties; tallies by partisan officials; and a lack of "clear, well-conceived laws and careful administration when it comes to elections."

I fail to see how any of those problems become worse under the compact. By contrast, some things get better. Those who win a mere plurality can be elected under either--but those who fail at even a plurality win under the current scheme. (Note, too, that Gore would have won under either the Compact or an instant-runoff vote) And I'd rather have fate of the country in the hands of a dozen (differently) interested Governors and Secretaries of State than a single Katherine Harris or Kenneth Blackwell--neither of whom, it should be noted, could have done anything to swing the last two elections under the compact, as close as they were.

So why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

# posted by

Andrew : 12:57 AM

Professor Levinson:

The French runoff system has much to commend it. A runoff will assure a majority vote without the third party candidates and give voters who failed to cast a ballot the first time see the negative consequences of that act.

The 2000 general election would have been very interesting under this system because we would have seen if the Nader voters really would have gone for Gore and it would have given all the GOP religious conservatives who stayed home during the first vote a second chance to come out once they saw Gore leading.

Of course, I wonder if the Dems really want a true majority electoral system given that none of their Presidential candidates have mustered a majority since Jimmy Carter right after Watergate and their only other President since then was a plurality winner who benefited from Perot splitting off the conservatives from the GOP. Having studiously recaptured their post Vietnam brand of the party of retreat and defeat, it does not look likely that any Dem presidential candidate will gain a majority in the next couple election cycles.

Be careful what you wish for.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:36 AM

it does not look likely that any Dem presidential candidate will gain a majority in the next couple election cycles.

Be careful what you wish for.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:36 AM

You haven't checked the poll numbers for 2008 lately, have you?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 10:21 AM

bb:

I have. None of the Dems have anything close to a majority and more people say that they would never vote for Hillary than those who do.

Be careful what you wish for.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:47 AM

Bart,

I still love your drive by trashing:

[Democrats h]aving studiously recaptured their post Vietnam brand of the party of retreat and defeat

As opposed to the waste, kill, and destabilize party?

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 10:50 AM

Baghdad, Hillary wins head to head matchups against anyone the Repedophilicans run against her. It's close, but she wins.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 10:54 AM

@Bartbuster: I crave a boon. Could you find some other cutesy pejorative as a substitute for your "Repedophilicans"? It doesn't do anything for your credibility and it's pretty offensive. Keep holding you-know-who's feet to the fire on substantive issues, but maybe forego that little bit of blogism? Better yet, quit demonizing large groups of people who could include potential allies on important issues. Contrast my invective against Bart or Charles as individuals with the reality that in the end the Democrats and Republicans both are much more alike than different...both are long since co-opted by the corporatocracy. $.02

# posted by

Robert Link : 11:28 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Robert Link : 11:32 AM

@Balkinization Hosts,

This is a bleg for a post on a recent ACSBlog post about Scalia's alleged statement of desire to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan. I, for one, disagree with Lithwick's notion that this is good for the bench. Instead it bespeaks, to me, prejudice and a decreased intention to attend to the merits of individual cases.

# posted by

Robert Link : 11:41 AM

I came up with "Repedophilicans" after the Foley scandal and in response to "the party of retreat and defeat". It's easier to type than Repwarmongeringimbecileicans.

From now on I'll just refer to them as the Rightwingnuticans. The warmongering part will just be assumed.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:51 AM

@Professor Levinson:

Mightn't we be "rearranging deck chairs" with these protracted discussions of the Electoral College or the Vice Presidency? How about a look at the Constitutionality of NSPD51/HSPD20, with the mild stylings of "National Continuity Policy" but which, given a plain meaning reading, provides the office of the President the final bit of absolute and despotic power we've been hurtling toward since September 18, 2001?

# posted by

Robert Link : 11:55 AM

Fraud Guy said...

Bart, I still love your drive by trashing

I will hazard a guess that Professor Levinson's primary motivation in calling for the elimination of the Electoral College system, like that of most Dems, is a reaction to Mr. Gore winning the popular vote and losing the election in the electoral vote.

I do not have strong feelings on this issue either way because the Gore outcome is so rare.

However, I do find it interesting that a party which has only had one Presidential candidate achieve an actual majority since Vietnam is calling for an absolute majority electoral system.

I am hardly the first one who has pointed out that perhaps the primary reason the Dems have only once gained a majority of votes since Vietnam is because the citizenry thinks of them as the party who loses wars. After stunts like the Senate sleep over last night demanding a surrender date for this war, the Dem Congress is plumbing historically new depths in the job satisfaction polls and hardly dispelling the impression that the Dems are the party of retreat and defeat. Mr. Bush is unpopular because the Iraq War is unpopular. However, the Dem's demand to lose the war is even less popular.

Thus, be careful what you wish for.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:05 PM

However, the Dem's demand to lose the war is even less popular.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:05 PM

Not according to the 2006 election, it's not.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 12:10 PM

Is anyone aware of any studies which indicate that an instant-runoff voting method would increase turnout?

It seems to me that it would enhance the electoral footprint of third parties, and therefore increase the choice in the election system, which would bring in a substantial number of those who disenfranchise themselves rather than vote for either party. If there are studies, I would appreciate seeing some mention of them.

# posted by

C2H50H : 12:26 PM

@Bart:
We've been over the polls thing before. Read down in the article you posted, and you'll see the reason the polls are low:

There is a growing sense that people voted for change in 2006 and they aren't getting it.

But you say people are upset because they want to "stay the course"...

We had this same problem when you pointed to the polls in regards to the immigration issue, never mind the fact that when the poll's questions were parsed out, a majority of Americans were in favor of the immigration reforms (some just wanted them to go even further, that's all).

Simply put, people are upset with Congress because they (unrealistically) expected them to kick ass, clean house, and restore the national honor, as if fighting an entrenched insurgency against democracy in our own country would somehow be easier than fighting an insurgency elsewhere.

But, to stay on topic:

Andrew said "An instant-runoff system would require a constitutional amendment..."

Is that really the case? While it's true that the electors from each state can only select one candidate under 12A, it doesn't say how the electors should arrive at their decision does it?

It would still suffer from the EC problems, but it would seem perfectly fine to use the ATV within the election process to decide for whom the electors will vote.

Am I missing something?

# posted by

PMS_CC : 12:31 PM

The report I read from a major western city which installed instant runoff was wiley candidates created secret deals during the campaign, to create a slate effect; they agreed to an aggregation strategy for debating opponents. The idea was to ask easy questions and make blunted criticisms of the secret pact principals, while saving the most scathing attacks in the campaign to vanquish the most viable opponents. In other words, instant runoff actually fostered cronyism during the primary campaign.

# posted by

JohnLopresti : 1:18 PM

PMS_Chicago said...

@Bart: We've been over the polls thing before. Read down in the article you posted, and you'll see the reason the polls are low:

There is a growing sense that people voted for change in 2006 and they aren't getting it.

This is Zogby's speculation, not polling.

Remember that only roughly a third of the voters cast ballots in 2006, with a large portion of GOP voters staying home, as is natural in a 6th year election for the party in the White House.

These polls are samples of all registered voters, including the 2/3 who did not vote in 2006.

Therefore, voter remorse by those who cast ballots in 2006 is probably a small part of this movement.

The Dem Congress only started off with the support of the Dem base and lost a good deal of that after alienating the left by declining to defund the war and a wide spectrum of their base with the illegal immigrant amnesty bill.

The President also took a hit with his base by supporting the amnesty bill, but has since recovered most of it by blocking Dem efforts to surrender Iraq to the enemy.

Currently, the Dem Congress has less than all of their base while the President has most of his and the middle rejects both parties.

The 2008 election is going to be fascinating given the level of distrust of government shown in these polls.

The GOP candidates would be wise to adopt the Reagan mantra that the government is the problem, not the solution, in 2008.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:21 PM

Baghdad, current polls overwhelming indicate that the American people support withdrawing our troops from Iraq. There is no way you can paint a smiley face on that pig and make it look good for you.

The GOP candidates would be wise to adopt the Reagan mantra that the government is the problem, not the solution, in 2008.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 1:21 PM

That's going to be tough to do when the Rightwingnutican candidate is chained to the Iraq disaster.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 1:27 PM

The GOP candidates would be wise to adopt the Reagan mantra that the government is the problem, not the solution, in 2008.

And if government is the problem, not the solution in Iraq, what does it logically follow that we should do?

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 1:34 PM

PMS_Chicago: Am I missing something?

Most importantly, you're missing the lesson it took me so long to learn, that every time you address an unrepentant sophistical hack you give it license to go for another round of cowardly cheats and lies. Treating a thug like a good-faith conversationalist is a mistake, and there's plenty of good conversation to be had distinguishing important fine points with folks you mor generally agree with than in lying with this particular dog. $.02 (And, again, it took me far, far too long to internalize this one myself.)

# posted by

Robert Link : 1:38 PM

Enlightened Laypeson: And if government is the problem, not the solution in Iraq, what does it logically follow that we should do?

The problem with such a question is it fails to call out that in the "mantra" the word "government" means "a Congress controlled by Democrats" as opposed to an Executive Branch controlled by Republicans. Note how little of this rhetoric is ever brought to bear on the steady increase of government intrusions on civil liberties from H.R. 3162 to the NSA wiretaps.

You can't always just boomerang the other guy's works back on him, especially not when those words are patently devoid of anything aproximating intellectual honesty. The neocons are quite content with as large a government as needs be to pursue their imperialist aims, and equally glad to bend the plain meaning of words for rhetorical benefit as needs be. Don't fall for it.

# posted by

Robert Link : 1:43 PM

Parsing Bart:

The Dem Congress only started off with the support of the Dem base and lost a good deal of that after alienating the left by declining to defund the war and a wide spectrum of their base with the illegal immigrant amnesty bill.

The President also took a hit with his base by supporting the amnesty bill, but has since recovered most of it by blocking Dem efforts to surrender Iraq to the enemy.

So now the Democratic base is anti-immigration?

Of course, Bush is losing a larger part of the country by his continued catering to the enemy's wishes to leave Iraq as a recruiting and training ground for terrorists.

a reaction to Mr. Gore winning the popular vote and losing the election in the electoral vote.

Arguably, because of some pre-election rigging of eligible voters by elements of the Republic Party.

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 1:45 PM

rl:

Most importantly, you're missing the lesson it took me so long to learn, that every time you address an unrepentant sophistical hack you give it license to go for another round of cowardly cheats and lies.

I'm trying to follow Mr. Field's tips, but I'm still in a transition state, so forgive me. Frankly, I meant to address the majority of that comment to Andrew, who I don't find to be an unrepentant hack at all. ;)

# posted by

PMS_CC : 1:53 PM

which would bring in a substantial number of those who disenfranchise themselves rather than vote for either party.

Perhaps.

Lack of choices, or dissatisfaction with available choices weren't in the top three reasons reasons given for not voting in the 2004 Census Bureau study.

'Too busy' (~20%), 'illness' (~16%), 'not interested' (~10%) made up the top three. 'Did not like candidates or issues finished' fourth, just under 10%

# posted by

Davis X. Machina : 2:24 PM

Mr. Link,

Meta commenting, I apologize for responding to Bart and Charles, the habitual trolls hereon. My profession focuses on going after false and misleading elements to avoid losses, and I therefore tend to maintain that focus in my offwork activities.

I do agree with your characterization of the above posters; who else would in one chain claim that the majority of Americans support the Bush agenda because they voted for him, and herein argue that since 2/3 of eligible voters did not vote last time, that the Democratic victories have no effective mandate. To paraphrase Twain, there are lies, damned lies, and then there are administration talking points.

I will periodically still point out their most egregious violations of polite and rational discourse as they make them (unless they are already refuted); that's what I do and am best at. However, I very much enjoy the actual discourse which occurs here (which is why I stay here), and will endeavor to contribute more to that, also.

There will always be fraud (and trolls). If you do nothing, I have found that it tends to increase.

Thank you,

Fraud Guy

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 2:36 PM

Fraud Guy said...

So now the Democratic base is anti-immigration?

No, a massive majority of the country is anti illegal immigration.

Of course, Bush is losing a larger part of the country by his continued catering to the enemy's wishes to leave Iraq as a recruiting and training ground for terrorists.

You mean dying ground, don't you?

Having fled Anbar and then Diyala provinces and leaving behind hundreds of dead Jihadis, the foreign commander of Al Qeada in Iraq was captured by the US Army on, of all days, the 4th of July.

The Dems have to be living in the twilight zone to honestly believe that we have to retreat from Iraq to fight al Qaeda. Senator Lieberman spent his time on the floor of last night's failed Senate slumber party quoting the entire al Qaeda command structure saying that Iraq is their major front against the United States and soon to be the capital of their Caliphate.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:44 PM

Actually, this might be a way to get some real constituional reform moving.

What you do is put together a consortium of big states who pledge all of their votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in just those states. This would effectively shut the small states out of the Presidential election entirely, and if they wanted back in, the price would be serious reform of matters like the electoral college and the composition of the US Senate.

I haven't bothered to do it, but it would be interesting to add up the population represented by those Senators voting for and against cloture this morning.

# posted by

Charles Gittings : 2:51 PM

You mean dying ground, don't you?

No, he definitely means recruiting and training ground. You warmongering idiots have been declaring victory in Iraq for 4 years now. No one is listening any more.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 2:53 PM

Charles Gittings said...

What you do is put together a consortium of big states who pledge all of their votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in just those states. This would effectively shut the small states out of the Presidential election entirely, and if they wanted back in, the price would be serious reform of matters like the electoral college and the composition of the US Senate.

How do you figure?

The winner of the majority of small states usually wins the popular vote and the winner of the popular vote nearly always wins the electoral vote with the obvious exception which proves the rule of Mr. Gore.

I do not see the pressure on the small states.

If your plan was in place in 2004, Mr. Bush's electoral majority would have been made into an electoral landslide in favor of the candidate who won most of the smaller states and the popular vote.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:09 PM

Davis X. Machina,

Thanks for the link.

That study did not directly address the question I'd like to see answers to. The correlation between the reasons people give for not voting under the existing methodology and whether they would find the same reasons under a more open election scheme is hard to see.

"Too busy" or "too ill" -- Frankly, if it came down to a choice between Joe Biden and John McCain, I'd still vote out of habit, but I might have to get a prescription for nausea to make it there. About half the people who list "too busy" or "too ill" will admit, under more questioning, that "lack of perceived choice" led to their being busy or feeling ill.

Surely some political scientist somewhere has studied this question using adjacent (in some sense) districts, one with instant run-off and one with a more traditional election method?

# posted by

C2H50H : 4:14 PM

c2h50h asks, Surely some political scientist somewhere has studied this question using adjacent (in some sense) districts, one with instant run-off and one with a more traditional election method?

Not that I know of. For one thing, there aren't that many implementations recent enough to provide good turnout data. Also, when an implementation is nationwide you can do before-and-after comparisons, but not matched pairs.

The effect on turnout has to be evaluated in two separate circumstances.

(1) When IRV replaces a two-round runoff in the U.S., turnout increases dramatically by definition. This is because previous turnout was much lower in one round than the other. For hard data, see this analysis of San Francisco data. Not only is overall turnout dramatically improved by eliminating the second election date, but the gap between ethnic groups is narrowed in the process.

I don't think this point would apply in France, at least not for their Presidential elections where turnout is generally high in both rounds.

(2) When IRV replaces simple plurality, the case for increased participation is more conjectural (as far as I know), and is pretty much along the lines c2h50h suggests. For a single case study with some hard numbers, see this study of Burlington, Vermont.

Like c2h50h, I would like leads to more information.

# posted by

Bob Richard : 5:41 PM

Andrew,

In the list of problems you think would not be made worse by the NPV compact you include locking out third parties. I think the compact would make small parties and independent candidates worse off in the short run.

It would become more important to get on the ballot in more states, making our totally insane system of ballot access for national office being determined at the state level even more discriminatory than it is. It would be less fruitfrul to pursue a regional strategy (although, as Prof. Levinson pointed out in previous thread, such strategies can only work because of the threat of having the House decide the election by unit rule). And advertising would become national in scope and less affordable.

The effect on small parties and independent candidates in the long run would depend on whether NPV opens the door to constitutional reform. As Prof. Levinson says, that's it's real promise.

# posted by

Bob Richard : 5:58 PM

@Fraud Guy & PMS_Chicago,

Thanks for being good sports about it. I find it hard to keep from addressing some folks directly and still haven't been able to turn off my habitual peripheral references (and links) to same. So feel free to bust my chops when they need 'em.

And, PMS, it's Mark Field's good example I'm trying to follow. Can't take credit where it ain't mine. Also, I'm aware of your respect for Andrew. That's the way it's _supposed_ to work, eh? ;)

Finally, a general comment, that I don't imagine going a bit off topic or meta with the sincere goal of creating better discourse is any more damaging or damnable than the repugnant acts of vandals. I think notes such as these can and will be forgiven by our hosts.

Peace.

# posted by

Robert Link : 6:00 PM