Dave Ketchum wrote:
Looking closer, I see that your formulas work to let low-populaiion states
keep their voting strength, while getting in relative party strength in
vote counts.
That's right.
Seems like this would have an uphill battle, for states doing better at
getting voters to the polls
On May 2, 2004, at 11:27 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2004 21:58:06 -0700 Curt Siffert wrote:
I see no sense in your words for swing states. Try 20 electors with
strongest party getting 10, second party getting 9, and remaining 5
percent of vote determining whether remaining elector g
On Sat, 01 May 2004 22:16:04 -0500 Adam Tarr wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Adam seems to dream of some magic that would make an amendment doable:
His magic is not convincing.
I never said That the change I suggest would make passing an amendment a
snap. You made a specific point, and I resp
On Sat, 1 May 2004 21:58:06 -0700 Curt Siffert wrote:
Under your plurality suggestion, Bush would have won in 2000 even though
Gore was the Condorcet Winner. Details here:
http://www.museworld.com/archives/001177.html
but in short, the calculations result with:
Bush: 48.17%
Gore: 48.01%
Nader:
Paul K wrote:
Alex's explanation is closest to what I learned in Civics as a
6th-grader, and evidently that isn't taught any more.
The EC was a part of the "Great Compromise" that also led to the
bicameral system. Every state gets equal representation in the senate
and proportional representantion
] On Behalf
Of Alex Small
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 10:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] electoral college/Serious thoughts
Adam Tarr said:
> P.S. Let's remember for a moment that the EC was not implemented as
> some high-concept method of guaranteeing small sta
Under your plurality suggestion, Bush would have won in 2000 even
though Gore was the Condorcet Winner. Details here:
http://www.museworld.com/archives/001177.html
but in short, the calculations result with:
Bush: 48.17%
Gore: 48.01%
Nader: 2.77%
Other: 1.05%
of the Electoral Votes, if you allow
On Sat, 1 May 2004 19:55:20 -0700 Curt Siffert wrote:
Dave -
I had a little trouble understanding what you wrote in your original
email. But I don't think you have it wrong... I think.
I don't think awarding by congressional district is a good idea, due to
gerrymandering, and due to the scena
I could have sworn I read somewhere that it was actually based off of
forms
of government in Roman/Greek history. I've always found the slavery
argument
offputting; just because it had an affect of helping the sovereignty
interests of all
states, some of which had a vested interest in slavery a
Adam Tarr said:
> P.S. Let's remember for a moment that the EC was not implemented as
> some high-concept method of guaranteeing small states' rights. It was
> a method of abstracting out the vote so that the southern states could
> get some credit for their non-voting slave populations. Not
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Adam seems to dream of some magic that would make an amendment doable:
His magic is not convincing.
I never said That the change I suggest would make passing an amendment a
snap. You made a specific point, and I responded to it. You said:
[removing the EC] "requires at
I still like the idea of pushing hard enough to eventually find a
system that is
elegant enough that it will appear to be clearly better than the status
quo,
removing much of the obstacle to voting against it. For instance, I
think the
reason we haven't gotten rid of the E.C. yet is because it
Dave -
I had a little trouble understanding what you wrote in your original
email. But I don't think you have it wrong... I think.
I don't think awarding by congressional district is a good idea, due to
gerrymandering, and due to the scenario you describe (10 A electors).
I do think the best
Dave Ketchum said:
> Paul seems to offer nothing as to how his idea becomes salable to a
> state such as NY, which now elects only Dem electors - while he wants
> NY to do some Rep electors.
Excellent point! I've said this before and I'll say it again: The
electoral college's current configura
I am looking at responses from Curt, Paul, and Adam. They seem to think I
have it wrong, but I see nothing useful as to WHAT I have wrong.
Paul notes that two states elect electors by CD, which he calls
proportional, and wants all states to do this.
Given a state with 8 CDs, each voting 60
Gerrymandering makes this a bad idea. While Gore won the popular vote
in 2000, Republicans won the house 239-196. Obviously that wouldn't
track exactly, because voting for president isn't the same as voting
for a rep, but it shows that the GOP has a big gerrymandering advantage
- there wasn't
inal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Dave Ketchum
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 11:11 PM
To: Curt Siffert
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] electoral college/Serious thoughts
First I hit some serious topics; then I comment on some of what Curt &
Ad
Dave wrote:
> Destroying the EC is neither practical nor useful.
> There are doable improvements for the EC.
> IRV people need to be locked out of this debate.
>
>Practical nor useful?
> Not practical, for it requires at least some of the low population
>states to approve a Co
First I hit some serious topics; then I comment on some of what Curt &
Adam wrote:
Destroying the EC is neither practical nor useful.
There are doable improvements for the EC.
IRV people need to be locked out of this debate.
Practical nor useful?
Not practical, for it requires
19 matches
Mail list logo
