On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:18:11 GMT, Chip Eastham <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >Check out this nontechnical discussion of a mathematical analysis of >the democratic virtue of the Electoral College in choosing the U.S. >Presidents:
He defines a voter's "power" as the probability that that vote will decide the election. I don't see that this is all that well-defined, but more to the point I don't see why we should accept that it's a good thing! Why should we _want_ to maximize the probability that an individual's vote will determine the election???
Seems like a _bad_ idea to me. Right now it appears that the election may well be decided by a very small number of votes in a few counties in Florida. I don't think that anyone thinks this is desirable. And if it were a straight popular vote it would not be so.
Curious. Say you're living in a state that's overwhelmingly for candidate XXX and you favor candidate A. Your vote has essentially no effect under the current system - under a straight popular vote it would have the same effect as everyone else's. Maximizing voter's "power" is a good thing, but equating this "power" with the probability that the vote will decide the election is absurd. The electoral system acts to _minimize_ the power of a lot of voters.