[EM] Quick elimination of useless rules: my Meta-rules

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Someone wrote:

Problem is though that the US Presidential election system distorts the
vote by its "winner takes all" selection of delegates from each
State. Meaning, say, a huge number of voters in a huge State like
California have their vote float away into insignificance 'cause they
didn't support the plurality winner in that State.

I reply:

In any state that could be said. A big state's disadvantage in the
electoral college is that a state's electoral votes are the sum of its
Representatives & Senators. The tiniest states have as many Senators
as the biggest states (two Senators). That means that the small states
are hugely overrepresented per-capita in the electoral college.
Rhode Island rules!

On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Craig Carey wrote:

 >
 > What are the seeming comments against the Electoral College for?.
 > It provides proportionality by providing a weighted summing of the
 > votes. A page here shows the weights. The pages allows a conclusion
 > that Demorep's wee comments adverse to the Electoral College would
 > be opposed California and Texas and other states.
 >

There are 2 irrational things wrong with the electoral college:

1) A state's electoral votes should be based on population, without
the giveaway based on Senators. Also, even the tiniest state gets
a Representative, which means that, even with regard to the House
of Representatives, the smallest states are overrepresented. Increase
the number of electoral votes that states have, enough so that the
small states have their fair share, but nothing more.

2)The "electors" that states put in the electoral college can, in
principle, do what they want, and ignore the wishes of those who
put them there. That's as absurd as problem #1, above.

If those problems were eliminated the electoral college wouldn't be
a bad thing.

Ideally, of course, it would be fairer to do one big Condorcet or
Approval election.

But the problem with that is that different states might reform their
rules separately. Some will, some won't. The beauty of the electoral
college procedure is that, for instance, California could hold a
Condorcet or Approval election, and give all its electors to the
winner. No matter what the other states or the federal government does.

Steve suggested that any group of states should have the right to
combine their electoral votes, and assign all of that group's electoral
votes to the winner of a Condorcet count among the voters of those
states. States would find it advantageous to join such a group.
Someone said that the Constitution forbids states from entering into
agreements with eachother. If so, that should be changed by an
amendment.



Craig rants on:

>When Mike Ossipoff
 >      explains rules to the list and explains corollaries (if ever) then
 >      that is "not a use of the rule".

I reply:

A use of the rule would be a public election. So what?


Most of the time Mike Ossipoff is
 >      using a copy and that and the original are not free of the use of
 >      undefined variables. A rule that is in the axioms and that is not
 >      ever used in the derivations can't be doing much more than
 >      threatening the consistency of the axioms.

You're not being very clear with us about what your problem is with
my method definitions, Craig.


Mike Ossipoff



>>
 >
 >

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I only said we'd make it across"
				-"Road Trip"


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.