[ER] Electoral College reform

[donald at mich.com]

10-10-96 Steve wrote:
>
>That was me, and since it was a "technical" proposal I posted it in
>the EM list (election-methods-list at eskimo.com), not this list.

Don: Good - someone knows the proper place to post technical stuff.

>I'd suggest that ER folks interested in discussing these details
>further subscribe to EM and direct their replies there.

Don: Yes - listen up all you guys and pay attention.(he means you) oops.
All right already! I will take your suggestion Steve - but first listen to
my tale of woe. (listen to your excuses)

One: I posted to [ER] by mistake.(won't wash - that is the same excuse
Steve made to you when Kevin posted in the [ER] list.)

Two: I followed the subject on [EM] then filed my report on the subject to
the [ER] list.(he's not going to buy that)

Three: I held up the report until there was a slow day on the list. Tuesday
was a Slow News Day on the [ER] list. (nobody should have been overwhelmed
by the two messages on that morning)

Four: I'm afraid to post on the [EM] list because I fear that the subject
will flounder there and never come out. I understand that at this very
point in time there is a big report lost somewhere in the [EM] list rolling
around like a loose cannon. If that ever comes out it'll be like dropping a
bomb on the [ER] list. (You're afraid those technical guys on [EM] will eat
you alive.)

Five: I have not been feeling well lately. (You never felt better - you
have no more excuses.)

  NO MORE EXCUSES!! - You Mean! - (Yes - you must post this on the [EM] list)

               god have mercy on all of us

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Wrote:

Steve:>                  - the algorithm which awards delegates must
>take into account the voting in other states.
>
Don: Very good - I agree. But the question is how is this to be done?
Instant Runoff Method of single winner can handle this very well. Instant
Runoff uses the NATIONAL standings of the candidates as the order of
candidates to be dropped one by one. As of now the other single winner
methods cannot couple with the national standings.


Steve: >The states are comprised of two groups: the unreformed states and the
>reformed states.
>
>1. All the reformed states would agree to pool their ranked ballots
>together when tallying, and agree to award all their electoral
>college delegates as a bloc to the same candidate.  If the total
>number of delegates from the reformed states is a majority of the
>electoral college, then the results in the unreformed states
>wouldn't matter, and the unreformed states would have a strong
>incentive to quickly adopt the reform to regain their lost clout.

Don: Steve, so far this is good.

>2. The candidate who will receive all the reformed states' delegates
>is the highest finisher, according to the pooled ballots in the
>reformed states, who can win a majority of the college.

Don: Steve, you are putting two conditions on the table. One: the candidate
must finish the highest in the reformed states. Two: The candidate must be
able to win a majority on the national electoral college. There is a good
chance that no candidate will meet these two conditions.

I know what you are trying to do here - you are trying to couple your
single winner method on the state level with the national standings. And
you are trying to do it by passing the rule: The state winner must be able
to win a majority on the national electoral college. It is not going to
work. This rule comes in to effect after you have worked your pairwise
method on the state's election numbers. The rule cancels out your pairwise
work and cancels out the election in the reformed states.

You have no right to deny the winner of the reformed states his due of
electoral votes. He won using your pairwise single winner method. If your
pairwise method cannot handle this election maybe it cannot handle any
single winner election.


Steve: >
>All of the reformed states would need to use the same single-winner
>method to tally the pooled ballots.  The choice of that method is
>beyond the scope of this message.  However, the subscribers of the EM
>list recently polled ourselves about which single-winner method(s) to
>advocate, and you can expect a report on that to be posted here soon.
>
Don: Better hold up on that report Steve - you may need to go back to the
drawing board - pairwise seems not to be able to cut it here in electoral
reform.


Steve: >Example 1:
>Suppose the only reformed state, so far, is California.
>Suppose the order of finish in California is:
>   1.Nader  2.Clinton  3.Dole
>Suppose that Nader doesn't win any other state, and that Clinton wins
>at least 270-54 delegates in the other states.
>Then California's 54 delegates would go to Clinton.

Don: Think - Think - Think what is happening here in this Example One.
There is no need to have an election in California - no matter what the
results would be in the state all the electoral votes go to Clinton
regardless. The California election would have no influence in the final
use of the state's electoral votes.

Steve: >Example 2:
>Suppose 10 states pass the reform which would bind their tallying
>together, and that together they have 150 delegates to the electoral
>college.
>Suppose the order of finish when the ballots of the 10 states are
>pooled is:
>   1.Perot  2.Bush  3.Clinton
>
>2.1 Suppose Perot won at least 120 (270-150) delegates in the other
>40 states.  Then the 150 would be awarded to Perot.
>
>2.2 Suppose Perot won less than 120 delegates in the other 40 states.
>Suppose Bush won at least 120 in the other 40 states.  Then the 150
>would be awarded to Bush.
>
>2.3 Suppose neither Perot nor Bush won at least 120 in the other
>states, but Clinton did.  Then the 150 would be awarded to Clinton.
>(I don't know if I like this, since Clinton finished last in the 10
>states.  There may be ways to improve this.)

Don: Example Two abridged:
             2.1 Then the 150 would be awarded to Perot.
             2.2 Then the 150 would be awarded to Bush.
             2.3 Then the 150 would be awarded to Clinton
Again let us think: The voters in these three parts of example two would
have no influence on the awarding of electoral votes. If there were no
election in California this system would still award the electoral votes
the same way.
               Why have them vote? - ( why indeed )

Part 2.4 turns out to be academic - so no need to vote in this part.(4 for 4)

Don: These are either poor examples or Pairwise cannot cut it.


Steve:>
>                   - the algorithm which awards delegates must
>take into account the voting in other states.
>
Don: This is the key to your problem. You have yet to come up with a good
way to couple state results with the national standings using pairwise
elections methods. It is hard for you to use pairwise on the national
standings because most of the votes in the nation only have one selection.
But - maybe you should try it anyway to see how that would go - (can't hurt
to try)  Go back to the drawing board and rethink this.

             You could always use Instant Runoff - Ha Ha (don't be mean)

Donald