Two strange errors

Good Morning,

The "founding fathers" of the United States, the architects of the Constitution, got so much right that it's hard to really understand two glaring errors.  I'm not talking about controversial provisions such as the second amendment (the right to bear arms).  That stems from a very different era when clearly one of the main concerns of the newly victorious revolutionaries was re-annexation by the British.  Against all odds and expectations, the Americans had won their independence from the mother country.  They were not about to let the mother take it back so it was important for the members of the militia to have the means to defend the new nation.

I'm talking about two decisions which would have added to the sense of "one in the eye" to Britain.  One is the surprising resolution not to adopt the new metric system -- essentially a product of the New Republic of France, our strongest ally -- of which the American delegates had been wholeheartedly in support during preliminary discussions.  Why would a newly democratic nation want to continue with weights and measures based on an anatomical feature of some long-dead King?  I refer to the feet and inches, etc. which are the foundation of the so-called Imperial System.  In fact, in a few months time it will be 40 years since Britain, the mother country, herself adopted the metric system.  Indeed there are only two nations on earth that still use the Imperial system and a curious pair of bedmates they make: the U.S.A. and Myanmar (formerly known as Burma).

The other decision, more a lack of innovation than an actual decision I suspect, was the non-adoption of the single-transferable-vote method of electing officials.  This, like the legal system, is another aspect of British rule that was lifted more or less intact from the colonists who had been driven out.  It can't be because they didn't think of it.  After all, the voting on such occasions as the Democratic Convention, when the delegates nominate a presidential candidate, use a transferable vote strategy (admittedly, there were no party conventions back in those days).  A series of ballots takes place and if, after any particular ballot, no candidate has a majority, the candidate(s) with the smallest totals are eliminated and the delegates who had previously voted for them must now vote for one of the remaining candidates.  And so it goes until there is a clear winner.  This is the only sensible way of selecting one winner from a group of more than two.  I'm pretty sure that the Romans used a method like this.

Of course, it is slightly easier in this case because the delegates hang around until the voting is done.  You can't expect Joe Sixpack (a somewhat derogatory name used to represent the ordinary people) to wait all day at the polling station.  That's where the specific STV methodology is required: Joe marks the ballot not with just one cross but with a prioritized list: 1, 2, 3, etc.  When the votes are tabulated, the first round simply generates the totals for all those marked "1".  If there's no clear winner, the least popular candidate is eliminated and any ballot marked 1 for him or her now is considered to have voted for its second choice.  And so on.  In these days of computers and voting machines, what could possibly be simpler?

So what, you might be asking?  Well, suppose the system was applied retrospectively* to the 1968 election between Richard Nixon (R), Hubert Humphrey (D) and George Wallace (I).  In the actual event, Nixon received 43.4% of the popular vote entitling him to 301 votes in the electoral college; Humphrey received 42.7% of the popular vote but only 191 electoral votes; Wallace received 13.5% of the popular vote and 46 electoral votes.  At first glance you might conclude that since 191+46 < 301, Wallace made no difference.  But many voters who might have wanted to vote for Wallace were probably put off because they'd be wasting their vote!  In practice, it might well have made a significant difference although it's also possible that it wouldn't have mattered.

Let's now take a quick look at the disputed election of 2000 (which was decided, un-constitutionally, by those actually appointed to uphold the constitution: the U.S. Supreme Court, but that's another story).  There were two main candidates: George "W" Bush (R) and Al Gore (D).  The popular vote went Gore's way: 48.38% to 47.87% (this was the fourth Presidential election in which the result did not reflect the popular vote).  But the votes in the electoral college went to Bush: 271-266 (there was one abstention).  So, what happened to the other 3.75% of the vote?  And could it have made a different?  These votes went to "fringe" candidates, mostly to Ralph Nader.  Leaving aside for the moment all the other states, Florida was ultimately the state that gave the presidency to Bush.  Let's look at Florida's total results: Bush 2,912,790, Gore 2,912,253, Nader 97,488.  Do you see?  Bush "took" the state by a whopping 537 votes (0.009%) while Nader "wasted" 1.635% of the votes.  If those Nader votes had been allowed, via the STV mechanism, to transfer their votes to their second choice, Al Gore would have been the 43rd U.S. President instead (this assumes of course that the majority of the Nader voters would have voted for Gore as seems likely).

I was reminded of all this because there is a three-horse race for Governor of Massachusetts coming up.  Again there are cries of "spoiler" to the third (independent) candidate.  Why can't we simply use the STV system and allow as many candidates as want to run?  There would be no spoilers as ultimately all votes get counted.

Wouldn't that be the definition of democracy?

From a crazy world,

Phasmid

*  I realize that this is an impossibility because the essential information of which would be the second choice of the Wallace voters was not recorded.