Nornagest comments on Voting is like donating thousands of dollars to charity - Less Wrong

32 Post author: Academian 05 November 2012 01:02AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (210)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Nornagest 06 November 2012 07:52:23AM *  0 points [-]

Well, everything I said in the grandparent would still apply if there were more than two major political parties in the US, or if electoral votes were tabulated in a different way (a ranked-preference voting system, say). There seems to be a loose consensus that first-past-the-post election schemes tend to lead to two-party systems, but I'd expect the presence of an electoral college to have a minor if any effect.

(The last time this was significant relative to the two-party system was probably the election of 1992, when Ross Perot swung just under 20% of the popular vote as an independent but carried no states.)

Comment author: CCC 21 November 2012 07:49:15AM 0 points [-]

Thinking about it, I think that the main effect of the electoral college is to amplify the two-party-ism of the first-past-the-post voting system (by making it that a person with less than 50% of the votes can beat a person with more than 50% of the votes).

I also think that, from the outside, removing the electoral college looks like an easier fix than changing the first-past-the-post nature of the vote.