Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
All of this would be finessed by the National Popular Vote idea:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
It'd effectively result in a national FPTP plurality election, hardly
ideal, but definitely an improvement.
The Electoral College is,
(snip)
However, it's hard to change the Constitution. Maybe it would be more
feasible to make reforms that aren't perceived as shifting the balance
of power between states. For example,
* Define the Electoral College apportionment as the Huntington-Hill
apportionment of 435
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In terms of population then, both houses
of the U.S. Congress give extra influence to small states
like Wyoming, whereas the Senate was created as
it is precisely as a countervailing force to the large
states, in the
Raph Frank wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In terms of population then, both houses
of the U.S. Congress give extra influence to small states
like Wyoming, whereas the Senate was created as
it is precisely as a countervailing force to the
Raph Frank Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 12:44 PM
Ballot access is pretty open in the UK, and you don't see
lots of former party members running.
Yes, ballot access is pretty open in the UK for any individual, party or group.
However, you should be aware that, since the 1998
legal
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:08 PM, James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raph Frank Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 12:44 PM
Ballot access is pretty open in the UK, and you don't see
lots of former party members running.
Thus each
party has total control of which candidates may use its name
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah. A candidate would run if they were legally allowed to. A candidate
who isn't a diehard loyalist to his party probably wouldn't see much
point in stepping down graciously and letting the winner of the
primary slide into
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah. A candidate would run if they were legally allowed to. A candidate
who isn't a diehard loyalist to his party probably wouldn't see much
point in stepping down graciously and letting the winner of the
primary slide into
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=Potential competition is also relevant. Primaries are unlikely to put
forward unpopular candidates if a popular loser could potentially
shoot them in the foot. This would give primaries more incentive to
pick someone
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My thoughts on primaries were challenged. Let me explain:
Primaries may be the rational response to FPTP. It doesn't matter.
Without Draconian sore loser, candidate oppression laws the parties
would have no way of stopping
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My thoughts on primaries were challenged. Let me explain:
Primaries may be the rational response to FPTP. It doesn't matter.
Without Draconian sore loser,
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it depends on how popular the candidate is. There would be some
candidates who can disregard primary results and some who can't. It
only works for
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it depends on how popular the candidate is. There would be some
candidates who
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because they cannot even run otherwise. I know it isn't the same as a
gun to your head, but it wouldn't even occur if they didn't have an
artificial monopoly on power.
Do you consider making them legally compulsory (sore
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because they cannot even run otherwise. I know it isn't the same as a
gun to your head, but it wouldn't even occur if they didn't have an
artificial
This topic has inspired an ocean of words - too many to respond to in
detaii. I will respond based on my memory of New York State law - I
believe close enough to be useful.
Elections in which the voter can only name one candidate, such as FPTP,
desperately need primaries to help each party
proportional than the electoral college makeup.
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -
From: Kathy Dopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:17:14 +0100
From
On Oct 17, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Raph Frank wrote:
9) Elections on Tuesday
why not make election day a holiday? or hold it on weekends?
I thought they were held over multiple days with 'early voting', or
was that changed?
There was a useful piece on this subject this morning on NPR
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Primaries are anti-utilitarian.
Without primaries, then the result of a plurality election is either
random, or more likely decided by the 2 party leaderships.
2) The Government enforcing any way for parties to operate is
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Kathy Dopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is not quite true. There are two states, Maine and one other (I
forget which) that proportionally split their electoral votes.
Recently there was an effort by Republicans to have CA split its
electoral votes
On Oct 18, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
A reasonable idea would be for a group of States to get together and
all agree (by compact maybe) to switch to proportional. If the group
as a whole has the same proportion of support for each party as it
currently casts its votes, then it
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
1) Primaries are anti-utilitarian.
Without primaries, then the result of a plurality election is either
random, or more likely decided by the 2 party
Multiple candidates from a constituency? I assume NOT for this post - that
is a major topic.
Plurality/FPTP as the election method? That is what we have in the US,
needs replacing and I will note some of the reasons below.
Approval as a replacement election method? Simple, but unable to
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 18, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
I'm still not getting it. Perhaps I'm not following the mechanism you're
suggesting.
I meant if they actually managed PR, but yeah, it is hard to come up
with a specific
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:14:29 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do we measure 'sincere'? In most places in the US N backers place a
candidate on a party primary ballot, and N2 (usually a larger number)
directly on the general
The United States uses FPTP, surprise surprise. However how bad would FPTP
really be if you remove some of the stupidity?
1) Primaries
Especially the presidential primaries. Why Iowa and New Hampshire I ask you?
The Republican winner-takes-state primaries are especially bad. The will of
the
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The United States uses FPTP, surprise surprise. However how bad would FPTP
really be if you remove some of the stupidity?
1) Primaries
Especially the presidential primaries. Why Iowa and New Hampshire I ask you?
The
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The United States uses FPTP, surprise surprise. However how bad would
FPTP
really be if you remove some of the stupidity?
1) Primaries
On Oct 17, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Greg Nisbet wrote:
I think you need to prove you have some 'valid reason' to vote
early. Anyway, I know there are some restrictions that make it
inconvenient otherwise who would show up at the polls?
Depends on the state. In California, you just have to ask,
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:17:14 +0100
From: Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision.
This is compounded by the fact that all states have switched to winner
takes all methods of selecting
On Oct 17, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:17:14 +0100
From: Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision.
This is compounded by the fact that all states have switched
31 matches
Mail list logo
