
Math Against Tyranny or Why We Should Keep The Electoral College (1996) - llambda
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyranny
======
btilly
OK, I read it through. It was long. And interesting once you got past the
fluff.

But the theorem proven has a dubious connection to reality. If you want to
maximize voter's voting power, the absolute best way to do it is to randomly
select a single vote to be the deciding one. This is much better than the
electoral college. And yet, would anyone seriously prefer that system?

And let's make it worse. According to demographic projections, starting in
2024 we should expect Texas to flip to the Democratic side of the ledger.
Until something fundamental changes, after that point it will be virtually
impossible to elect a Republican President despite the closeness in popular
support.

That means that the electoral system will serve to deny _everyone_ the
possibility of having a meaningful role in selecting the President, rather
than just denying it to most of us as happens now.

~~~
bitwize
_That means that the electoral system will serve to deny everyone the
possibility of having a meaningful role in selecting the President, rather
than just denying it to most of us as happens now._

There's still the Democratic primaries...

It's not the electoral system's fault that the Republicans can't field a
candidate that inspires the goodwill that Obama did. Or that they're rapidly
losing touch with reality. Or that they've squandered the nation's trust with
cold strategizing like the Southern strategy.

~~~
TallGuyShort
You're missing the point of the discussion completely. The starting point here
is that the electoral college does not accurately represent the popular vote.
If "the Republicans can't field a candidate that inspires the goodwill that
Obama did", can you explain the tiny gap in popular votes between either
candidate, or that by number, the vast majority of geographical divisions
voted for Romney? There's a compromise between all states being equal and
proportional representation, and the point is that Texas becoming a blue state
would throw that balance even further away from the popular vote (regardless
of that being a good or bad thing). In any case, there have been repeated
discussions on HN lately about the theories behind why each party will simply
change their platform to get as close to 50% of the vote as possible. Please
don't take the chance to rag on your opponent-of-choice. I'm not a Republican
either, but this is just not classy discussion.

edit: If you're still unable to discuss this without bias, think about the
2000 election - same problem.

