Hi, James G-A replied to Rob B: -snip- > If I lived in a swing state, I would be all for > a proportional allocation. It's just more fair, > less unstable. Who really wants to be in the middle > of the kind of craziness that they have in Florida > these days?
There's another way besides proportionality to make it more stable. Right now it's *pure* winner-takes-all, which has a sharp swing of delegates at the 50% +-1 point: --------------------- | | ---------------------- Suppose instead it were winner-takes-all except when the vote is really close: --------------------- / / ---------------------- I've exaggerated because of the limitations of the text font. When I say "really close" I'm thinking about within 1%, or maybe 1/2%. This would make recounts less important, since they could only change the outcome by 1 delegate or so, assuming the initial count isn't attrocious or fraudulent. --Steve ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info