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,
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
