Author: Santucci

Institutional sources of election-outcome acceptance?

I am not an expert on this literature, but I do know that close elections are a problem. I also believe (perhaps wrongly) that independent election administration is self-enforcing when it emerges from and exists alongside multiparty competition. If right, this strikes me as a way to design other institutions so that they enjoy broad legitimacy.

The unit-rule allocation of Electors is therefore an issue: first by constraining the number of parties, second by making outcomes depend on very small numbers of votes.

Here is an idea for the sake of argument: mandate closed-list PR within states for choosing Electors, and move the election of the President into the Electoral College.* Make it negotiate and produce a coalition. Do what the Framers intended, except in a more modern way.

I do not think this change is likely, but it’s interesting to think about.

*The EC already chooses the president in a technical sense, but it does not deliberate. Hence the notion of a “faithless elector.”

Clearing up misconceptions about open-list PR

I have heard from enough sources that OLPR was about winning the voting-system wars. “Enough” means enough to merit comment.

OLPR was arrived at in several ways:

1) Does what STV does with less administrative headache.

2) Does what STV does while addressing pathologies in its past operation.

3) Has to be the go-to federally because MMP seems unconstitutional.

4) Has to be the go-to generally because “all” agree that closed-list PR is a “nonstarter.”

Have a good Independence Day weekend.