# Electoral College Reform starting with one or a few states

donald at mich.com donald at mich.com
Wed Oct 23 02:55:43 PDT 1996

```Mike writes:
>When you speak of transferring the electoral votes of dropped
>unwinnable candidates, that implies that you've given them
>, even temporarily, before the choice process is completed.
>

Dear Mike,
It is necessary to divide each state's electoral votes according to the
state's popular vote on each candidate. This is the way I am able to
preserve the electoral vote ratio to population for each state.

I know that DEMOREP1 is in favor of doing away with the U.S.Senate and the
two electoral votes that each state receives - but I am not going into that
dispute in my presentation of the topic Electoral College Reform in one or
a few states. The plan that I have presented fits into existing conditions.

The balance of your post deals with which is the best single-winner method
to use - another dispute that I have not gone into in my presentation. I
made it clear that it is up to the Reformed States to decide which
single-winner method to use.

What I have presented is the order of a number of steps which need to be
taken before using some single-winner method. You are free to advocate
whichever.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now to something else - Combinations and Vote-Sums

I never said nor intended that we must compute combinations that have no
votes. If a combination has no votes it does not have a Vote-Sum. Only
combinations with Vote-Sums are to be considered.

Having said that - I want to spell out two mathmatical limits on the number
of Vote-Sums.

One: There cannot be more Vote-Sums than people that voted in an election.
Two: There cannot be more Vote-Sums than the number of possible combinations.

There cannot be more but there can be less - maybe a lot less.

Less - because thousands of people will happen, for any reason, to vote the
same combinations.

Have no fear - we will not be facing Vote-Sums in the trillions and trillions.

This discussion started when I complained that it was unreal for the voters
to only cast votes for three of fifteen possible combinations. It becomes
more unreal when we realize that in order for this to happen the voters for
the same candidate on the first pick would all vote lock-step for the same
candidate on the second pick and then again vote lock-step for the same
candidate on the third pick - very unbelivable. And this was supposed to
happen with all three blocs of voters. Your example is reproduced below:

40 ABC
25 BAC
35 CBA

This example is not a valid example - it is suspect.

Yours,

Donald of New Democracy http://www.mich.com/~donald

```