National popular vote 3

I do not think that the NPV proposal (see 8-6-10) is a reasonable method. There are two major problems that I see with it and both involve assuming that, even though you have changed the rules, the whole process will continue along just like it has before (see Stasis Fallacy 5-27-10). They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It is also pretty crazy to think that if you change what you are doing, then you are going to get the same result.
The first problem is that this is a pure plurality system election. There is no runoff, no matter how few votes he gets the candidate with the largest vote wins. If both parties nominate centrist candidates you could have the wingnuts on each side throw in two more candidates and then the election can be won by someone whose vote is in the high twenties. This could easily draw in a couple more candidates and suddenly you could have a vote tally of: 23%, 21%, 20%, 18%, 14%, 4%. A president who only got 23 % of the vote! The electoral college has never produced that kind of minority president. Contemplate the idea of how a president could govern if 77% of the voters had voted against him.
Why didn’t they provide for a runoff? Because they can’t. There is no way to include a runoff in their program because you’re options are limited when you are trying to amend the constitution through a back door maneuver. Their response is that the scenario above won’t happen. It has never happened before. They don’t mention that in all of the “befores” we were using that other system … .