On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:50:22 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
...
Assuming that this represents 100 votes for A then 100 AC is
represented. If B was also in the matrix there would be 100 AB.
This last 100 fails to show up below:
Oops. Yes, that's true. Still,
A possible tiebreaker for same names would be to prepend (or append)
the state of origin to each candidate name. In case two have the same
name in the same state, the state decides who gets to be number one
and number two. These corner cases would be extremely unlikely, but
it doesn't hurt to
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:16:55 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
A possible tiebreaker for same names would be to prepend (or append)
the state of origin to each candidate name. In case two have the
same name in the same state, the state decides who gets to be
number one
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:45:38 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
I'll add that this phrasing would give states the same power no matter
the relative turnout. If that's not desired, it could be rephrased
differently, but giving states the same power is closer to the
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:37:35 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:45:38 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
...
States have differing collections of candidates:
In theory, could demand there be a single national list. More
practical to
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:58:30 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
I think an NPV-style gradual change would have a greater chance of
succeeding than would a constitutional amendment. The constitutional
amendment requires a supermajority, and would thus be blocked by the
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:45:38 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:58:30 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
I think an NPV-style gradual change would have a greater chance of
succeeding than would a constitutional amendment. The constitutional
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:45:38 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
If the small states resist, the large and middle sized states will attain a
majority, and thus through the compact/agreement overrule the others. At
that
Dave Ketchum wrote:
With the EC it seems standard to do Plurality - a method with weaknesses
most of us in EM recognize.
Let's do a Constitutional amendment to move up.
I propose Condorcet. One advantage is that states could move up to use
it as soon as ready. States, and even districts
Hallo,
in my opinion, the electoral college has two
advantages to the popular vote.
First: It gives more power to the voters in
smaller states.
[In the USA, the Senate is significantly stronger
than the House of Representatives.
For example: To appoint a Cabinet member or some
other federal
On Nov 7, 2008, at 6:07 AM, Chris Benham wrote:
Presumably then you would favour abolishing the general
presidential election and instead fill the office by a vote
among the members of the Senate.
That would further greatly reduce the chance of a deadlock
between the President and the Senate,
Dear Jonathan Lundell,
I wrote (7 Nov 2008):
Second: It makes it possible that the elections
are run by the governments of the individual
states and don't have to be run by the central
government.
[Currently, to guarantee that the Equal Protection
Clause is fulfilled, it is only necessary
On Nov 7, 2008, at 2:09 AM, Markus Schulze wrote:
Second: It makes it possible that the elections
are run by the governments of the individual
states and don't have to be run by the central
government.
[Currently, to guarantee that the Equal Protection
Clause is fulfilled, it is only necessary
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:58:30 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
With the EC it seems standard to do Plurality - a method with
weaknesses most of us in EM recognize.
Let's do a Constitutional amendment to move up.
I propose Condorcet. One advantage is that states could
--- On Fri, 11/7/08, Markus Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Markus Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] In defense of the Electoral College (was Re: Making a Bad
Thing Worse)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 4:09 AM
Hallo,
in my opinion, the electoral
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:09:51 +0100 Markus Schulze wrote:
Hallo,
in my opinion, the electoral college has two
advantages to the popular vote.
...
Second: It makes it possible that the elections
are run by the governments of the individual
states and don't have to be run by the central
--- On Fri, 11/7/08, Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] In defense of the Electoral College (was Re: Making a Bad
Thing Worse)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Chris Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED], election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Hi,
--- En date de : Ven 7.11.08, Markus Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Second: It makes it possible that the elections
are run by the governments of the individual
states and don't have to be run by the central
government.
I especially agree with this second point, or at least that it
Kevin Venzke wrote (Fri.Nov.7):
Hi,
--- En date de : Ven 7.11.08, Markus Schulze markus.schulze at
alumni.tu-berlin.de a écrit :
Second: It makes it possible that the elections
are run by the governments of the individual
states and don't have to be run by the central
government.
I especially
Hi,
Greg Nisbet wrote on 10/18/08:
-snip-
The Electoral College:
This is generally regarded as a bad thing. No one really appears to
support it except as an adhoc version of asset voting.
-snip-
I don't believe the EC is generally accepted as a bad thing. (I picked
the Subject line above to
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Steve Eppley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One widespread argument against the EC is that presidential candidates
ignore the voters in states where a candidate has a big lead. I don't
accept that. It seems more reasonable that the candidate with the big lead
has it
Steve Eppley wrote (Th. Nov.6):
Hi,
Greg Nisbet wrote on 10/18/08:
-snip-
The Electoral College:
This is generally regarded as a bad thing. No one really appears to
support it except as an adhoc version of asset voting.
-snip-
I don't believe the EC is generally accepted as a bad thing. (I
ZERO defense here - it is time to be rid of the EC!
First a detail that scares many before they seriously consider change: The
EC is packaged such that each 100 voters in state X have as much power as
120 in CA or NY.
Could simply multiply state X counts by 120%.
I am NOT promoting
On Nov 6, 2008, at 6:58 AM, Steve Eppley wrote:
Greg Nisbet wrote on 10/18/08:
-snip-
The Electoral College:
This is generally regarded as a bad thing. No one really appears to
support it except as an adhoc version of asset voting.
-snip-
I don't believe the EC is generally accepted as a bad
24 matches
Mail list logo
