These arguments assume "counting" equals "your particular vote has the a mathematically greater probability of determining the winner".

Right. I was specifically looking at voting power.

But the fact remains that Montana's voters are weighed more heavily per voter than New York cities in counting the votes.

But in a way that ends up not mattering. They've got more heavy influence over a much smaller number of votes -- a number so small that it comes close to having no influence at all. To take a smaller (and much more extreme) example, suppose there are two states. State A has 10 people, and one electoral vote. State B has 100 people and 9 electoral votes. Now, each person in state A can be said to be "weighted" with 1/10 of an electoral vote, and each person in State B with 9/100, so that each person in State A has a vote weighted more heavily, by your analysis. But it doesn't matter what anyone in State A actually does -- whoever has the majority in State B will win the election.

Your argument that voters in small states are "weighted more heavily per voter" would be valid if each state allocated electoral votes by percentage (though issues with rounding would lead to some interesting stuff there -- I'd have to play around with that to see what issues would come up.) But in our current system, the weight per voter isn't counted that way.

And like I said, I agree that there are plenty of problems with the electoral college. I just have not yet seen a convincing argument that "It gives too much power to voters in small states" is one of the problems.

(I don't like straight plurality, either. Way too much chance of several popular candidates splitting the vote. If I were in charge, we'd have some kind of preferential ballot system. Not sure which one, since there's no such thing as a perfect voting system, but just about all of the reasonable ones are preferable to straight plurality.)

Oh. Saws all. I get it.

Hee. In the college theater group at one point, late at night, some of us were sitting in the "office", and our friend Mike wanders in from the shop, to ask Jenn "Can I cut this (whatever it was) with the sawzall?"

And she looks at him and says "Mike. It's a SAWZALL. It...saws...all!"

Speaking of which, I have chicken thighs and leeks I need to use up. I should do something with chicken and leeks tonight.

I have a recipe for boneless chicken breasts and leeks, I think from t mumble, cough Rachael Ray, where you sautee the leeks a bit, then add the chicken and cook covered with a cup or so of white wine. At the very end you take off the lid and turn up the heat to thicken the sauce, adding a tablespoon or so of butter. Couscous or egg noodles make a good side. It's simple but tasty, and I think it would work with thighs, either boned or boneless.

As for the Electoral College, I think the greater weight given to a small state voter's vote is a problem, but the fact your vote matters more in a swing state of any size bothers me more. This will sound kind of silly, but we occasionally talk about moving to Oklahoma (where DH is originally from) so AB will be closer to her family and so we can take advantage of the lower cost of living. One of the negatives on my list (along with it's too hot, it's too flat, it's too far from dramatic rocky coasts, and there's no MLB team) is that I'd never cast a meaningful presidential vote again as a Democrat in a heavily Republican state.

As for the Electoral College, I think the greater weight given to a small state voter's vote is a problem,

But small state voters' votes aren't given greater weight. If the system were something like, "OK, Kansas went 60% Republican and 40% Democrat, and Kansas has 4 electoral votes, so that's 2.4 Republican votes and 1.6 Democrat votes," then those voters would have greater weight. But it doesn't work that way.

I'm currently a regisitered voter in New Jersey. I'm living in DC, but keeping enough ties and spending enough time in NJ (I had jury duty there a few months ago) that I can keep my voter registration there. If I've got a choice, I'd much rather my vote go toward deciding New Jersey's 15 votes than toward deciding DC's 3.

My own favorite suggested system is that whichever candidate gets the most votes in the congressional district gets that vote, plus two for whichever candidate carried the State as a whole.

My own favorite suggested system is that whichever candidate gets the most votes in the congressional district gets that vote, plus two for whichever candidate carried the State as a whole.

Well, if you're going to change the system I don't know why you wouldn't go for whomever gets the most votes wins.

That's my vote.

I dislike plurality voting because it's far too easy for, say, an election to have a strong liberal, a liberal-leaning centrist, and a strong conservative, getting 25%, 35%, 40%, respectively, leading to the conservative candidate winning, even though the second choice of many of the people who voted for the strong liberal would probably choose the liberal-leaning centrist as a second choice.

hmm... well, not under the current two party system. we couldn't get into that mess until we had a viable third.

hmm... well, not under the current two party system. we couldn't get into that mess until we had a viable third.

Well, Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992. It's not unreasonable that someone else could get a similar percentage in the future. Or, even in a closer election, if it's split something like 48/49/3, then the second choice of those three percent could be taken into account.