It's an interesting article, although I have a few criticisms of Natapoff's analysis. Firstly, the notion of voter power, is it meaningful? It doesn't seem to be to me. Secondly, assuming that it is meaningful, it seems (although it's not entirely clear from the article) that he is comparing the expected voting power of a randomly chosen individual in the two systems under consideration, and it isn't clear that this is the best comparison (how about comparing the minimum voting powers as would be suggested by a minimax idea?).
I came up with an interesting idea which I haven't really had much time to play with yet, the idea of "random democracy". Rather than choosing the president (or whatever) based on who has the most votes (be they electoral college or individual votes), you get everyone to vote, and then you randomly (uniformly) select an individual vote from all the votes cast and make the decision based solely on that. Statistically speaking it's superior to the "maximum number of votes" principle, because everyone's vote is (statistically) of exactly equal value, whereas this isn't true in a traditional system (for example, voting for Nader effectively nullifies your vote as far as choosing the president is concerned, although it does serve another purpose). Of course, there are problems with this system, but I think it's an interesting idea nonetheless.
Chip Eastham <email@example.com> wrote in message news://firstname.lastname@example.org... > > > Check out this nontechnical discussion of a mathematical analysis of > the democratic virtue of the Electoral College in choosing the U.S. > Presidents: > > http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm > > Regards, > Chip > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.