I may have posted this a while ago, but not sure.
On the EC, what about this rule:
The most popular party shall be assigned a "win margin" which shall be
equal to its total vote cast for the party less the total vote of the
next largest rival.
Before the count, the party that was assigned a
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax writes:
> If Mr. Poole thinks that what I wrote was "political rant," I wonder
> what planet he is from. He is certainly free to ignore it, as is
> anyone. But what I wrote was little more than what is commonly
> believed among, for example, legal experts regarding the 2000 ele
At 09:49 AM 5/16/2006, Michael Poole wrote:
>Rational arguments over the merits of any particular reform are a lot
>easier to analyze when divorced from political rants and other
>"religious" topics. Would it be unreasonable for posters to do that
>rather than expecting readers to do it -- or, mor
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax writes:
> At 10:13 PM 5/15/2006, Bob Richard wrote:
> >I will go one step further than Steve Eppley does below, and predict
> >that the Supreme Court would rule this particular compact
> >unconsititutional in spite of the very learned arguments presented at
> >www.every-vote-eq
At 10:13 PM 5/15/2006, Bob Richard wrote:
>I will go one step further than Steve Eppley does below, and predict
>that the Supreme Court would rule this particular compact
>unconsititutional in spite of the very learned arguments presented at
>www.every-vote-equal.com. I think the current court wou
ts,
Bob Richard
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Steve
> Eppley
> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 12:26 PM
> To: election-methods@electorama.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] Electoral College
>
>
> Ralph Suter wrote:
> >
Ralph Suter wrote:
> On May 4, Steve Eppley wrote:
>> Could Article I. Section 10 of the US Constitution interfere with that
>> scheme?
>>
>> "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty
>> of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,
>> enter into any Agreemen
On May 4, Steve Eppley wrote:
> Could Article I. Section 10 of the US Constitution interfere with that
> scheme?
>
> "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty
> of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,
> enter into any Agreement or Compact with another
At 10:32 AM 5/5/2006, Steve Eppley wrote:
>And then, of course, there's the question of whether 5 Supreme Court
>justices would
>interpret it when ruling on this scheme.
Supreme Law of the Land would appear to be the Supreme Court. There
is a higher court, but those who sit on it are fast asleep
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 10:24 AM 5/4/2006, Steve Eppley wrote:
>> Could Article I. Section 10 of the US Constitution interfere with that
>> scheme?
>>
>> "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty
>> of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,
>>
At 10:24 AM 5/4/2006, Steve Eppley wrote:
>Could Article I. Section 10 of the US Constitution interfere with that scheme?
>
> "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty
> of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,
> enter into any Agreement or Compact
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
-snip-
> However, note that the system which is actually now before state legislatures
> in more
> than one place sets up a compact. It does not take effect unless enough
> states ratify
> it to constitute an electoral college majority.
-snip-
Could Article I. Section
At 10:15 PM 5/3/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>HOW do you get a majority of voters in a state to volunteer to let anyone
>other than whoever they voted for become winner???
You think. Seems to be a severe shortage of thinking
State Vote in Presidential Election:
Bush: 48+
Gore: 48
Green: 4
Overs
On Wed, 03 May 2006 15:10:41 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 02:29 PM 5/3/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>> Presently, with a couple small state exceptions, each state awards all its
>> votes to the candidate doing best in that state.
>
>
> Yes.
>
>> Above you propose one state volunte
At 02:29 PM 5/3/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>Presently, with a couple small state exceptions, each state awards all its
>votes to the candidate doing best in that state.
Yes.
>Above you propose one state volunteering to award its votes based on a
>formula that could cause the winner to change from
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:00:29 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 01:06 AM 4/27/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
Retrieving what you wrote preceding your "It appears.." sentence:
>> However, a reform could be much more sophisticated. As one example:
>>
>> A state could select electors pledged t
Dave K wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:06:00 -0700 Steve Eppley wrote:
>> Dave K wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:18:06 -0700 Steve Eppley wrote:
-snip-
>> Third, I'm curious how one can distinguish between these two cases:
>> 1.1 A candidate has a safe lock on some state, and therefore
>>
At 01:44 AM 4/27/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>Now disagreed:
> Who is third in a state could be a serious contender in others.
Absolutely.
> EVs for a minor candidate COULD be pledged as to who to vote for if
>their primary candidate lost.
Yes. Or, alternatively, if it is the electors
At 01:06 AM 4/27/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>It appears that the Constitution allows just about any method of
>>choosing electors that a state wishes to follow: this, indeed, is
>>the source of the problem, for it led inevitably to all-or-nothing,
>>since that benefited the majority party in eac
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:06:00 -0700 Steve Eppley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:18:06 -0700 Steve Eppley wrote:
>>
> -snip-
>
>>>Some people don't consider the Electoral College winner-take-all
>>>within most states to be messed up. Here are 2 reasons to prefer
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:01:05 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 06:36 PM 4/25/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>>BUT, such a state cannot afford to go proportional by itself - that
>>would be a gift to
>>the losing candidate who presently gets no electoral votes from that state.
>>A constitutional
Hi,
Dave Ketchum wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:18:06 -0700 Steve Eppley wrote:
-snip-
>> Some people don't consider the Electoral College winner-take-all
>> within most states to be messed up. Here are 2 reasons to prefer
>> winner-take-all:
>>
>> 1. If states allocate their Electoral College
At 11:02 PM 4/25/2006, Dan Bishop wrote:
>A good idea, but how would you prevent it from once again degenerating
>into the "vote for electors who will vote for (candidate)" system?
If that is what the people want, that is what they will get. However,
we don't allow candidates to put campaign prom
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
...
> Personally, though, I would do something entirely different. I would
> suggest that electors run for office. Personally. I would take the
> Presidential candidates off the ballot entirely. I would use the
> College much more closely to how it was originally inten
At 06:36 PM 4/25/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>BUT, such a state cannot afford to go proportional by itself - that
>would be a gift to
>the losing candidate who presently gets no electoral votes from that state.
>A constitutional amendment that made all states proportional would
>be a possibility.
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:18:06 -0700 Steve Eppley wrote:
> Antonio Oneala wrote:
>
>
>>The electoral college already allows candidates to withdraw their support and
>>give it
>>to other candidates.
>>
...
A bit misleading - while the US Constitution does not forbid that particular
activity,
23 Apr 2006 16:18:06 -0700From: Steve Eppley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: [EM] Electoral College (was Re: Voting by selecting apublished ordering)To: election-methods@electorama.comMessage-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowedAntonio Oneala wrote
On 4/23/06, Steve Eppley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some people don't consider the Electoral College winner-take-all within most
> states
> to be messed up. Here are 2 reasons to prefer winner-take-all:
>
> 1. If states allocate their Electoral College delegates proportionally, then
> every s
Antonio Oneala wrote:
> The electoral college already allows candidates to withdraw their support and
> give it
> to other candidates.
That "support" would be non-binding on the Electors.
Also, some states have passed a law requiring their Electors to vote for the
state's
winner. I don't b
29 matches
Mail list logo
