Steve Eppley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi again,
I should add one small point to the message I posted a few minutes ago.
Assuming the orderings do not need to be strict orderings, and assuming
(Withdrawal)PluralityRule is the method used to tally, there is a question about how to
count an ordering that ranks two or more non-withdrawn candidates at its top. Its weight
could either be split or counted fully for each of those candidates. I favor the latter,
but I think it would tend to work well either way.
--Steve
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
The electoral college already allows candidates to withdraw their support and give it to other candidates. Actually, this is probably one of the main reasons the founders wanted an electoral college. The main think that messed up here was the at-large allocation of votes that most states chose - therefore, a person with a plurality usually gets a landslide in the college, and no redistribution is necessary.
In fact, in only one election have candidates even considered switching around their votes - in 1822 (I think). This election eventually went to the house of representatives, but logically one of the candidates could have dropped out and told his electors to vote for one of the other candidates, thus ensuring a majority. This would probably require comprimses, and it would reduce partisanship, which is why the founder's wanted it. It's more simialar to the parliamentary system used in Europe, providing for a balanced executive, except with a seperation of powers. We could still go back to this, though, if we merely allocated the states electoral votes proportionally.
Blab-away for as little as 1ยข/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
