The below is an excerpt from Federalist No. 9, para. 3 by Alexander
Hamilton---
The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received
great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood,
which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the an
Mr. Eppley wrote:
Here's a question for Demorep. Suppose the voters:
1) majority-approve A,
2) majority-disapprove B, and
3) majority-prefer B more than A.
Should A be elected because B is disapproved, or should B be elected because
B is preferred more than A? Here's an example which illu
Steve Eppley wrote:
[snip]
>But if you're referring to "offensive"
>tactical opportunities in IRO, as I recall they're not a problem.
[snip]
Consider the recent disclosure that Nixon and Buchanan plotted to
finance an African-American candidate to draw votes from the Democratic
nominee in 1972.
U.S. Supreme Court action on Dec. 2, 1996
(ORDER LIST: 519 U.S.)
APPEAL -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION
96-471MILLER, CLARENCE, ET AL. V. OHIO, ET AL.
The judgment is affirmed.
--
The Ohio gerrymander was especially written to protect incumbents. The
>>top 2 nominated in each district by order of federal court
>What does this mean? Does the court specify which districts require a
>run-off ballot, or specify which candidates shall compete, or something
like >that?
The Court ordered a special election to be held in newly drawn districts
ev
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996 08:55:09 -800 Steve Eppley wrote
> Here's a possible reform I haven't seen considered: let a person
> compete for more than one office at a time.
>
> The point would be to encourage more good candidates to compete for
> higher office, by not forcing potential candidates to
>top 2 nominated in each district by order of federal court
What does this mean? Does the court specify which districts require a
run-off ballot, or specify which candidates shall compete, or something like
that?
Tom
