Bart Ingles wrote:
>
> Richard Moore wrote:
>
>>It would be harder to make people see the advantages of a new
>>method if adopting that method fails to bring those promised
>>advantages. So abolishing the EC is either a prerequisite or a
>>corequisite to getting a better method in place.
>>
>
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:37:39 -0800 Richard Moore wrote:
> I think the EC is actually an obstacle to election method reform.
> The EC can take an FBC-compliant method and make it non-compliant,
> for instance. Suppose one large state selects a Green slate of
> electors by Approval, and this causes
Richard Moore wrote:
>
> It would be harder to make people see the advantages of a new
> method if adopting that method fails to bring those promised
> advantages. So abolishing the EC is either a prerequisite or a
> corequisite to getting a better method in place.
Only if your focus is the U
I think the EC is actually an obstacle to election method reform.
The EC can take an FBC-compliant method and make it non-compliant,
for instance. Suppose one large state selects a Green slate of
electors by Approval, and this causes the Republican candidate
to win because that state, that usually
It's one thing to give a minority of the population (e.g. the small states)
a veto against the exercise of power, and quite another to let them
exercise power against the popular will. The latter can happen when the
President is elected against the popular will (we can debate which method
best as
