Some thoughts befpre going to the polling booth tomorrow...

[sandwichwarrior]

One of the chief complaints made against the electoral college is that it encourages people to vote "tactically" rather than for a candidate that they genuinely like, out of fear of seeing their vote wasted

Comments

[chron_job]

> complaints made against the electoral college is that it encourages people to vote "tactically" rather than for a candidate that they genuinely like

[sandwichwarrior]

Un-ask the question. Its construction presumes that our opinions about candidates are boolean.

Are they not?

Either someone is worthy of holding a leadership position or they are not.

If they are vote for them, if they are not don't. It is not complicated. Or at least not as complicated as making that determination in the first place.

[chron_job]

> Are they not

[bord_du_rasoir]

Tactical Voting is more a consequence of First Past the Post voting, not the Electoral college.

Exactly. I came here to say that.

Well, actually, I'd say, tactical voting (of the kind you're referring to - voting for one of the two major parties, rather than for a 3rd party) is ENTIRELY a consequence of first past the post voting and has nothing at all whatsoever to do with the electoral college (no one makes that argument; you're clearly confused).

The electoral college actually encourages 3rd party voting in non-swing states (as a tactical measure).

If we really want to encourage multiple parties, we'd take measures to implement preferential voting like Australians use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia

[chron_job]

> The electoral college actually encourages 3rd party voting in non-swing states (as a tactical measure).

Indeed! I didn't think of that aspect. Now that you've said it, it's obvious!