[EM] FW: Methods of elimination in quota preferential STV

[David Catchpole]

There's always JK Galbraith's North Dakota Plan...

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> 
> 
> Craig Layton wrote:
> 
> This is part of the problem: the disproportionate power of geography.  If 5
> million people in Florida have a particular point of view they have a lot of
> power (and even more if they get to run their own country because of it),
> but if the same 5 million people are spread across a wide geographical area,
> they have no power at all.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> But at least the big region doesn't have power over people who
> choose a different region to live in. Everyone has more power to make things 
> they way they'd like them in their own nation.
> 
> Craig L. continues:
> 
> As a general rule, the more parocial national
> governments are (and your little nation-states partitioned on the basis of
> common points of view are likely to be the most parochial of all) the less
> tolerant they are of minorities, and the more likely they are to descend
> into despotic majoritarianism.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Well, yes, they'd say "Love it or leave it!", and mean it. But that's
> the whole idea of the partition. People voting with their feet.
> 
> Somehow, the land holdings of the nations should be adjusted for
> migration within the former U.S. When someone leaves a nation, they
> take some of its land with them. Honest censuses would be a problem,
> and so the migrations would be recorded when they take place.
> Immigration from outside the former U.S., and population changes due
> to different average family-size wouldn't affect land holdings.
> 
> Are there regions of this country that would make us uncomfortable
> if they were nations? Maybe, but remember that their repressed people
> could leave, and take some of the land area with them. (Maybe provisions
> like that would be part of an initial treaty among the nations:
> Anyone has the right to leave any nation, and land holdings are
> adjusted for migrations).
> 
> Now, who should get the Mohave and who should get California's coast,
> etc.? It seems fair for each climate region to be divided up, so
> that each nation gets a fair piece of good climates & harsh climates.
> The nations wouldn't be contiguous.
> 
> Mike Ossipoff
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
> 
> 

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