On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Jonathan Lundell <[email protected]> wrote: >> - You mentioned earlier that the first vice president should come from a >> different grouping than the president. If people agree with this, then they >> should agree that similar principles should apply also to the rest of the >> council. > > As a historical note, the US Constitution originally had a rather convoluted > scheme for electing the president and VP (even more convoluted than the > present scheme, that is). The fact that it could (and did, in 1796) result in > the P & VP being from opposing parties was one of the reasons for the 12th > amendment > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>.
The issue here was that the VP would replace the President if the President died. This means that if the President dies/resigns, power is handed over to the minority. Tyranny of the majority can be bad, but tyranny by a minority is worse. I think the current proposal for VP election is reasonable. However, it might be worth having the first VP elected as the 2nd place condorcet winner. The result would be P>VP1>VP2=VP3>rest of council This means that the first VP also represents the political centre and would be a reasonable replacement for the President. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
