MetaChat - NPVIC

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

20 February 2008

NPVIC - I just learned about this particular type of electoral reform. What are your thoughts? →[More:]

I'm "back". I've spent the last week getting over bronchitis or pneumonia or something, and I celebrated President's Day by reading the write-up of every single U.S. presidential election in history. It's kind of reassuring, seeing that the current two-party system is not as deeply entrenched as I'd thought (even if the last 3rd-partisan to win an electoral vote was a pre-Reconstruction George Wallace running on the "Keep Darkie Down" ticket). I've regained some perspective on the process from a longer viewpoint than my own score-and-seven years observing elections. I got into my research because I've always been fascinated by the switch between the Democratic and Republican parties (esp. given the original party was the Democratic-Republican party, united against the original blue-staters, those horrible Federalists *mock shudder*). It's kinda like finding out the Red Sox were originally the Yankees or something (sorry, living in Boston means I can now only think in sports metaphors).

Anyhow, it's been enlightening reading (between the lines) about how much all the rah-rah cheerleading and partisanship I find so nauseatingly divisive really develops from such petty schisms. It's also edifying seeing how the Democrats went from representing rich southern landowners to representing rich northern intellectuals and how the Republicans went from representing rich northern intellectuals to screwing over the poor southern average joes they claim to represent.

Not looking to spark a powderkeg here. I think MeCha can do "political science" a whole lot better than 'the other site', where it usually devolves to "politics" and rah-rah, no-you-suck infighting. I'm really curious to see the opinions of people from all over the world on this potential electoral reform's effects on the future US landscape.

post by: Eideteker at: 16:43 | 6 comments

Personally, I'm concerned about the population shift in the US. Florida and the Southwest are growing, so there's a chance this could pull attention away from the Northeast even more than currently, but I can't imagine things would be as bad as 2004, where only the swing states counted and something like 50% of the time and money was spent in 5 states at the end. I like the idea of increased voter turnout and the potential for realistic third-party challenges.

posted by Eideteker 20 February | 16:49

Eideteker - I share your fascination with US political history.

But I don't much like the NPVIC, mostly because it's kludgy. I'd much prefer if every state agreed to award delegate in the national election proportionally to the popular vote - this would also help to break the "two-party problem".

I wouldn't mind instant run-offs, but those are a bit tricky. In college, we had a math professor with an interest in political science give a little talk on how the rules of an otherwise fair election can effect the outcome of the election. Fascinating stuff, really.

posted by muddgirl 20 February | 16:59

The main reason I don't like it is that to me it only seems to solve a certain current problem. I'm also concerned about a free-rider or even spoiler side-effect with states that don't adopt the reform. There's a potential for some very odd-looking outcomes.

I don't think I would oppose its adoption by my state, though -- in fact I'm sort of curious how far this will get.

I think the "two-party problem" is largely moot. Having two parties will not, in the long run, prevent a view from gaining acceptance or establishment in law, because if it is popular one of the parties will adopt it. "Treason never prospers, here's the reason: For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." It's largely the concern of diehard Greens or Libertarians. If we were to reform Congress to more closely resemble multi-party democracies, but not change to a Parliamentary system entirely, we might weaken Congress as a legislative arm in the three branches of power scheme.

posted by stilicho 20 February | 18:08

Oh, I don't mind a two-party government, but proportional delegates in the presidential electoral college would give more delegates to third party candidates (IE, more than zero) and would, I think, give more voice to their arguments. It also leads to presidential elections more in line with the popular vote.

posted by muddgirl 20 February | 18:29

stilicho: I don't get how there can be free riders. If the participating states have more than 270 electoral votes, the other states' system is completely irrelevant, the winner of the national popular vote wins, whatever the other states do with their electors. Everyone's vote counts the same for the outcome, regardless of state. Whether it ends up being 270-269 when the popular vote was 95-5% is irrelevant at the end, since the 270 votes ensure the winner wins.

If they don't get 270 electoral votes, the system doesn't go into effect, so this side of the discussion is irrelevant.

posted by qvantamon 20 February | 18:48

I think the NPVIC is better than nothing, but I'd love to see the electoral system completely overhauled. Get rid of the electoral college altogether, introduce an automatic run-off, require all candidates to use public funding and public funding alone ... oh, I could go on for hours. However, for what I'm suggesting we'd need a constitutional amendment, and the only way that's going to happen is if our elections continue to be more and more insane as time passes.

Also, when pigs fly.

posted by brina 21 February | 12:43

← alt. country – whatever that was || Update on that leaked "Where The Wild Things Are" clip →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN