Colorado: another nail in the elctral collg coffin

[muon2]

This is a poor way to do this allocation.  It should really be done the same way the census allocates congressional seats (and electoral votes) to the states, which I believe is the "truncate-plus-largest-remainders" method described earlier.  

In the case of CO above, both Nader and Gore were much closer to getting the final electoral vote than Bush, yet it is still awarded to Bush.  

With a large field, the distribution could get even stranger.

Consider a 5-candidate field in a state with 10 EVs:
A - 36%
B - 24%
C - 14%
D - 13%
E - 3 %

Under the "Colorado" system, the EVs would be allocated like this:

A - 6
B - 2
C - 1
D - 1
E - 0

While under the "truncate-plus-remainder" system, they would work out this way:

A - 4
B - 3
C - 2
D - 1
E - 0

Which seems much more logical to me.

Congressional approtionment uses the method of equal proportions which is based on the geometric mean and depends upon each state getting at least one representative.  However you could use it for proportioning the electoral votes of a state if the you set some other method for determining when a candidate gets his first electoral vote.  The easiest way would be to use 1 as the multiplier to determine the priority value of the first electoral  vote for that candidate.  (The multiplier for  the nth vote is 1/sqrt(n(n-1)) which is the same as used for the nth representative that each state gets.

For the five candidate race you gave, the method of equal proportions gives the same result as the truncate plus remainder method, but that would not be the case for all possible results.
 

Ernest, I agree that the method you describe would be the most sensible if vote are proportional. Not only does it match the way the congressional apportionment is done, but it also matches the way many multi-party democracies handle proportional representation. I haven't seen which method of allocation CO proposes in its referendum.

That said, if EV's are split by a state I would prefer the ME/NE system since it mirrors the weight of all states and districts in congress. I think there would be less chance of FL-type problems, since the most a recount could affect is one vote for a CD or 2 for the state.

[muon2]

This is an excellent point. Fix gerrymandering first.

Posted from Iowa, where we have fixed gerrymandering.

How has Iowa fixed gerrymandering?

By turning it over to a non-partisan legislative services bureau which has fairly strict standards to which it must adhere, one of which is ignoring such matters as voter registration and residence of incumbents. Furthermore, the legislature can only vote up or down the lines submitted to them.  Well, at least the first two times, if it goes to a third plan then they have that option.  But there would be hell to pay with the voters if they rejected the independently drawn boundaries - Iowans really like this process.

I can find a link to an official description of the process, if you're interested. (but it will have to be tomorrow....)

The key to Iowa's districting is that each CD is made up of a whole number of counties, and a computer algorithm sorts through thousands of combinations to produce the combination that minimizes the population differences.

IA can justfy such a course unit as a county for two reasons. One is that state law uses county-based CDs in drawing its state legislative districts. This provides adequate justification to keep counties intact despite not making them exactly equal in population. The second reason is that no county in IA is larger in population than a CD. Polk Co. is the largest at 374,601, much less than the average CD size. This means IA does not need any exceptions to its procedure.

The IA method cannot directly translate to any state that has one or more counties of population in excess of a CD, or a significant cluster of Polk-sized counties next to each other. Then the population differences would be too great to survive a court challenge.

This leaves states using a smaller unit, such as towns or townships. As long as the size of the smaller units doesn't exceed a CD, this could work like IA. Most of the larger states would still fail. For instance, Chicago by itself is over 3 million people so one is forced to carve it into smaller units. Once the rule is broken, one can argue that it should be broken in other places in the same state so as to make population more equal.

[muon2]

I haven't seen which method of allocation CO proposes in its referendum.

Sure you have; I posted a description and a link in the second post on the second page.

Thanks, I missed the url in your post (actually on page 4 ).

I agree then with Nick G that this is not a sound way of proportional representation, and reiterate my agree ment with the modified method of apportionment as described by Ernest.

I also found item 11 extremely interesting: "The General Assembly may enact legislation to change the manner of selecting presidential electors or any of the procedures related thereto." Doesn't this mean that as soon as the legislature meets again it could adopt a more appropriate method such as the method Ernest described, a NE / ME style apportionment, or even a winner-takes-all system? On its face this looks like a way to have the change effective for this election only - it seems very suspicious.

[muon2]

I know that this probably won't happen because of politics, but is it possible to write a computer program that could set CD lines that are not based on counties, it seems like it wouldn't be to hard and if written properly, should make gerrymandering very hard.

It's actually very easy. When I was a student 25 years ago it was a standard assignment for undergraduate computer science majors. IA uses a computer for its process. As you note it's a political decision, so political powers need to be willing to relinquish that control over the process.

[muon2]

For jimrtex, two thumbs up!

[muon2]

I also found item 11 extremely interesting: "The General Assembly may enact legislation to change the manner of selecting presidential electors or any of the procedures related thereto." Doesn't this mean that as soon as the legislature meets again it could adopt a more appropriate method such as the method Ernest described, a NE / ME style apportionment, or even a winner-takes-all system? On its face this looks like a way to have the change effective for this election only - it seems very suspicious.

The US Constitution (Article II, Section 1) states that the _legislature_ of each state shall direct the manner by which presidential electors are appointed.  The Colorado Constitution has a particularly radical expression of the doctrine that the People voting in a referendum _are_ the legislature.  That is, on November 2nd, the legislature will be meeting throughout the State to decide whether the State Constitution will be changed.  But, one legislature may not bind the actions of a future legislature.  

So the assertion that a future legislature may change the method of appointing electors has no practical effect.  It would be true if the proposed referendum were silent on the issue; and it would be true if the proposed referendum stated that the legislature could _not_ change the method of appointment (the US Constitution would override in that case).

But what it does do is imply that this referendum is simply the legislature of the State of Colorado exercising its authority under Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution.  If the referendum passes, then this could be signficant in the subsequent inevitable litigation.

If you look at the proposed language, the preamble is all sizzle and no steak - but that is what is going to be sold to the voters (populist rhetoric).

In CO, is the General Assembly also the People of the state? The text uses General assembly. I used legislature because in IL they are one and the same.

Preambles of bills usually are the sizzle. They are fattened anytime there is significant controversy or potential legal challenge. The hope is that the preamble will convey the intent of the bill.

[muon2]

In CO, is the General Assembly also the People of the state? The text uses General assembly. I used legislature because in IL they are one and the same.

The General Assembly (that is the Senate and House of Representatives) exercises the legislative power of the State - but the Colorado Constitution reserves to the People the power to enact legislation independent of the General Assembly.  The following is the beginning of the section of the constitution related to the legislative power (i.e. power to enact laws).

ARTICLE V LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 1. General assembly - initiative and referendum
(1) The legislative power of the state shall be vested in the general assembly consisting of a senate and house of representatives, both to be elected by the people, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls independent of the general assembly and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act or item, section, or part of any act of the general assembly.

So the part of the proposed amendment in item 11, does seem to empower the CO House and Senate to modify the method of apportioning electors after enactment, ie. changing the procedure after this election is complete.

[muon2]

In other words, Huntington-Hill (the currently used method) is biased in favor of smaller states.

It uses a geometric mean - the square root of the product of two consecutive numbers. This value is farthest from the average for the smallest numbers. That's what gives extra weight to smaller states.