seppley at alumni.caltech.edu
Wed Nov 6 21:10:54 PST 1996
Bruce A wrote:
>>>> Bruce, would you care to suggest the definition(s) appropriate
>>>> to the Electoral College reform issue, so that we could discuss
>>>> "voting methods" of the form EC//M (where M is some single-
>>>> winner method).
>>> if there are no candidates that are capable of winning in
>>> this manner, then EC should select all of the candidates
>>> running in the election as its winners.
>> But that complicates the definition of the function, and for
>> what gain? The electoral college is deadlocked and moot no
>> matter how the reformed states award their delegates. So
>> why do you say "should"?
>In my "definitions document" a Single-winner Ranked-ballot Voting
>Method must always result in at least one winner. This is a
>standard definitional criterion, and I do not choose to relax it.
This doesn't appear to me to be a good enough reason to change
the ec reform proposal. Plenty of other methods also won't meet
this "narrow" definition, such as allowing voters to insert a
"None of the Rest" choice in their rankings. I think the onus
is on academics to model real proposals, rather than on reformers
to make things simpler for academics.
This is a small enough addition to the proposal that maybe I
shouldn't be too concerned with the added complexity. More
significant is the case where exactly one candidate is capable
of winning nationally: the simple ec reform proposal will elect
this candidate, but the reformed states might be happier to
let the House pick the winner in some circumstances.
---Steve (Steve Eppley seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)
More information about the Election-Methods