Re: Democratizing the Senate (II)

2002-05-06 Thread Michael Rouse
- Original Message - From: "Adam Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 9:50 PM Subject: RE: Democratizing the Senate (II) > Demorep may be a doomsayer, but he has a point here. Convincing people of > an extreme change to the way people are elected

RE: Democratizing the Senate (II)

2002-05-06 Thread Adam Tarr
Demorep may be a doomsayer, but he has a point here. Convincing people of an extreme change to the way people are elected to the Senate would be a tough task. Moreover, this would require a Constitutional amendment, as it conflicts directly with the 17th Amendment: "The Senate of the United

RE: Democratizing the Senate (II)

2002-05-06 Thread DEMOREP1
Alex wrote in part- I came up with a proposal that conforms much more easily to Article V (no state shall lose its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent). It isn't an ideal democratic method, but it is a step in the right direction. --- D- How about ZERO Senators per gerrymander Sta

[EM] Democratizing the Senate (II)

2002-05-06 Thread Alex Small
I came up with a proposal that conforms much more easily to Article V (no state shall lose its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent). It isn't an ideal democratic method, but it is a step in the right direction. Elect half of the Senate on the basis of one per state, elected by the p

Re: Strong FBC

2002-05-06 Thread Forest Simmons
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Adam Tarr wrote: > At 05:23 PM 5/3/02 -0700, you wrote: > >The Gibbard-Satterthwaite result doesn't rule out Alex's SVM (Small Voting > >Machine) when you take into account that the voting machine is supposed to > >apply the OPTIMAL strategy, which is sometimes a probabilistic

Re: [EM] Strong FBC

2002-05-06 Thread Forest Simmons
On Mon, 6 May 2002, [iso-8859-1] Alex Small wrote: > Forest wrote: > > >The Gibbard-Satterthwaite result doesn't rule out Alex's SVM (Small Voting > >Machine) when you take into account that the voting machine is supposed to > >apply the OPTIMAL strategy, which is sometimes a probabilistic mixtur

[EM] Strong FBC

2002-05-06 Thread Alex Small
Forest wrote: >The Gibbard-Satterthwaite result doesn't rule out Alex's SVM (Small Voting >Machine) when you take into account that the voting machine is supposed to >apply the OPTIMAL strategy, which is sometimes a probabilistic mixture of >pure strategies requiring coin tosses, die throwing, or