The Star, Toronto’s daily newspaper, has this column about the future of electoral reform in Canada. If one reads to the end of the article, one learns that Proportional Representation is more likely to become policy than Instant-Runoff Voting. According to the story, that is because it is thought that Instant-Runoff Voting would help the Liberal Party, but Proportional Representation would help all the other parties. The article says that electoral reform is one of those policy areas where change is not consider legitimate unless there is a rough consensus in favor.

Nick Kachiroubas, an associate teaching professor at DePaul University, has compiled a 20-page publication “An Informational Guide to the 2016 Presidential Election Process.” See it here. It is useful for anyone who wants to know more about the processes used by Democratic and Republican candidates for President. For example, it has the formula by which each of the two major parties allegate delegates at the national convention to particular states. It explains the rules for delegates to the two major party conventions.

But the publication is not well-named, because it has no information whatsoever on the process for people running outside the two major parties. The author even writes, “If the Republican presidential candidate receives 50.01% or more of the popular vote in Ohio on November 8, 2016, then all 18 of the Republican presidential electors are duly elected to the Electoral College.” Neither Ohio or any other state requires slates of presidential elector candidates to receive at least 50% of the popular vote in order to be elected.

In Ohio alone, the winning slate of presidential electors did not receive a majority of the popular vote in 2000, 1996, 1992, 1976, 1968, 1948, 1932, 1912, 1892, 1888, 1856, 1852, 1848, 1844, or 1824.