Electoral College reform (was Re: Addition to earlier post)

[donald at mich.com]

Reply to Steve's post - from Don

>Don wrote:
>
>>I wish to make an addition to my earlier post today dealing with
>>Electorial College reform.  I wish to increase the number of
>>candidates in the runoff of top candidates.
>>The change is as follows:
>>  The candidates in the runoff will be the top two plus any other
>>  candidates that can win the national election if they gain all
>>  the electoral votes of the reformed states.
>
Steve: >Good.  That's my proposal, almost, but not quite as good as

Don: I am not oppossed to using someone else's proposals (you'll take from
anywhere if it means getting the job done).


Steve: >mine, imho: there's no good reason to include the "top two" if
>they can't win nationally.

Don: I have changed my two candidate concept somewhat. My position now is
that if two or more candidates are in reach of a win then we drop all the
other candidates and use a single-winner method to obtain a winner in the
reformed states. This winner shall receive all the electoral votes of the
reformed states which when added to electoral votes that this same
candidate has in the UNreformed states will make this candidate the
President. The reason we drop candidates is to force the reformed states to
pick between candidates that can win it all. When a contest exists between
two or more candidates that can win it all, we do not want the possible
problem of the voters picking some other candidate to win in the reformed
states that does not have enough votes in the UNreformed states to win it
all.

Don: In order for a reform plan to work the reformed states must be put in
the position of being the King Maker whenever possible. That is to say that
the reformed states will be deciding which candidate becomes the President.
This power will attract other states to join the reformed group of states
until all states become reformed states.

Don: In the cases in which there is only one or no candidate within reach
of a win the policy shall be that we drop no candidates. The policy is
changed because in these cases the reformed states are not in the position
of being the deciding power between two of more candidates that are in
reach of a win. In other words the reformed states cannot play the King
Maker. Therefore it is best to let the single-winner method decide who gets
the electoral votes of the reformed states.



Steve: >To morph it into my proposal:
>   The candidates in the runoff will be any candidate(s) that can
>   win the national election if all the electoral votes of the
>   reformed states are added to the electoral votes that the
>   candidate(s) won in the unreformed states.
>I think this is also better than Don's on the KISS standard.  :-)

Don: I have no problem with the above as far as it goes - I would like to
add the condition: The two or more candidates in the runoff will be any
candidates that can win etc.



Steve: >Instead of using the term "runoff", which implies a second round of
balloting in the reform states,

Don: I have no problem with some other term.



Steve:>just use the results of the sw method in the reform states after
eliminating the candidates who can't possibly win from the ballots which
were already cast.

Don: What I like here is the order - you are using the single-winner method
after dropping candidates (carve it in stone). This will work. I was under
the impression that your policy was to work the single winner method FIRST
in the reformed states and then eliminate candidates. Question: What do you
do with the votes of the dropped candidates in the reformed states? - I say
these votes should be salvaged and reassigned to the remaining candidates
per the other selections of the voters.



Steve:>I also agree with Mike's suggestion that the candidate who finishes
last in the combined reformed states should also be eliminated from
contention.

Don: I am having trouble understanding this rule. This last place finisher,
is he one of the candidates in reach of win if he gets the reformed states
votes? If so I say he should not be eliminated. He has a chance to win. The
voters in the reformed states should decide if he is to win or lose. Or: if
this last place finisher is one of the minor candidates with the lowest
amount of popular votes in the reformed states - he is last - he is most
likely out of reach of winning anyway and would be eliminated by your
statement above. I do not see the value of this rule??



Steve: >There's no point in awarding delegates to the most despised
candidate just because s/he's the only one who can win a majority of the
electoral college.  That would be worse than letting the House of
Representatives pick a winner.

Don: This is not only good - it is GREAT!  I want it carved in stone (my
words). This supports my contention that we must allow the voters of the
reformed states to dump the dispised candidate when there is only one who
can win a majority of the electoral college. We do this by not dropping any
candidates. We work the single-winner method to the conclusion of a single
candidate no matter who wins the electoral votes of the reformed states
(what will be - will be).



Steve:>
>Single-winner methods do more than pick a winner--they also sort all
>the candidates in a "collective preference" order if the following
>algorithm is applied:
>
>To find which candidate finishes in nth place in the collective
>order, eliminate the 1st thru (n-1)th place finishers from the
>ballots, retally the remaining candidates using the sw method,
>and select the "winner" of the remaining candidates.
>
>For example, given the 3-candidate race with the familiar ballots:
>   46: Dole>Clinton>Nader
>   20: Clinton
>   34: Nader>Clinton>Dole
>
>If the method is Condorcet then the collective order is:
>   1.Clinton 2.Dole 3.Nader
>That's because Clinton is the sw winner and therefore the 1st place
>finisher in the collective order.  After eliminating Clinton from
>the ballots, what's left is:
>   46: Dole>Nader
>   20: wasted
>   34: Nader>Dole
>Dole wins this by Condorcet and gets the 2nd place spot in the
>collective order.  That leaves the 3rd place spot to Nader.
>
>If the method is Instant Runoff then the collective order is:
>   1.Dole 2.Clinton 3.Nader    (Details omitted.)

Don: Slight Correction: Using Instant Runoff, Nader should be second -
unless you have dropped Nader because he is not in reach of national win.


>* *
Steve: >
>So, the current proposal (which perhaps Don, Mike and I can all
>agree on) is:
>   1. Determine the collective order in the combined reformed states.
>     (The sw method isn't specified here, but all the reformed states
>     would have to agree on which one.)

Don: I agree that we should determine which candidates will be running in
the single-winner race, but we have to yet to agree how to determine the
selection. I do not know what you mean by collective order.


Steve: >  2. Eliminate from the collective order the last place finisher.

Don: I still do not know the value of this rule as I have stated earlier in
this post.


Steve: >   3. (optional) Eliminate candidates beaten by NOTR.

Don: I must pass on comment here - NOTR is out of my knowledge.


Steve: >   4. Eliminate from the collective order all candidates who can't
win a majority of the electoral college.

Don: >I agree with this as far as it goes. I would like to make additions.


Steve: >   5. If at least one candidate remains in the collective order,
>       award all the reformed states' delegates to the collectively
>       most preferred of the remaining candidates.
>       Else award all the delegates to the candidate who was first in
>       the collective order before any eliminations were made (i.e.,
>       first in the order determined in step 1.)

Don: I cannot comment because I do not know what collective order means.


>
Steve: >Example:
>Suppose the reformed states have 120 delegates to award.
>Suppose Dole and Clinton each won at least 150 delegates in the
>unreformed states but Nader won less than 150 delegates.
>Suppose the collective order in the reformed states is:
>   1.Dole 2.Clinton 3.Nader
>Step 2: Eliminate the last place finisher Nader:
>   1.Dole 2.Clinton
>Step 3: not applicable: NOTR wasn't used.
>Step 4: Eliminate Nader (again) since he can't win 270 delegates:
>   1.Dole 2.Clinton
>Step 5: Award the 120 delegates to Dole, who wins the office.

Don: Steve, I must study this example before I can comment on it (forgive us).

        But offhand I question the opening numbers.

                Reformed States   120
                           Dole   150+
                        Clinton   150+
                          Nader   150-
                      -------------------
                          Total   570 +or-

Steve: >
>The more states join the reformed group, the greater would be the
>incentives on the other states to join.  When the reformed group
>reaches 270 delegates, the other states would feel compelled to
>join before the next election, whether or not they allow citizens'
>initatives.

Don: Most likely this would happen before 270 delegates. Less - maybe less
than 200 would make the reformed states the King maker - other states would
soon see this power and jump on board.

Don: What follows is my plan (as of now) in order of operation.

One: In the electon the voters will be allowed to make more than one selection.

Two: After the election we check the electoral vote counts of all the
candidates in the UNreformed states. If two or more would be in reach of a
win, provided they were to win the electoral votes of the reformed states,
we drop all other candidates from the reformed states tally.

Three: The votes of these dropped candidates are reassigned to the
remaining candidates per the other selections of the voters.

Four: If only one or no candidate is in reach of a win, we do not drop any
candidates. All candidates will run in the single-winner race coming up
next.

Five: The two or more or all candidates remaining will run in the
single-winner race for all the electoral votes of the reformed states using
some single-winner method agreed on by all the reformed states.

Six: The winner of the race will receive all the electoral votes of the
reformed states. These votes will be added to the electoral votes this
candidate has already received in the UNreformed states.

Good Night All - Don,