[EM] electoral college/Serious thoughts

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sat, 1 May 2004 21:58:06 -0700 Curt Siffert wrote:

> Under your plurality suggestion, Bush would have won in 2000 even though 
> Gore was the Condorcet Winner.  Details here:
> http://www.museworld.com/archives/001177.html
> but in short, the calculations result with:
> 
> Bush: 48.17%
> Gore: 48.01%
> Nader: 2.77%
> Other: 1.05%
> 
> of the Electoral Votes, if you allow fractional EVs.  Nader spoils Gore 
> in this case, too.  Also note that no one got 50% of the EVs, so no one 
> got 270 - it would have gone to the House.
> 
> There are a lot of bizarre problems if you don't allow fractional EVs, 
> for instance a swing state with an even number of EVs would not have a 
> lot of campaigning invested in it, while a swing state with an odd 
> number would.


I was doing it without constitutional amendments, so there could be no 
fractional electors.

I see no sense in your words for swing states.  Try 20 electors with 
strongest party getting 10, second party getting 9, and remaining 5 
percent of vote determining whether remaining elector goes to Nader or a 
party.

I also suggest that Nader electors NOT be pledged to vote for Nader if he 
cannot win.

ANYWAY, NY could expect more than the zero attention it got in 2000.
> 
> The problem with it going to the house is that gerrymandering means that 
> the GOP has the advantage there even if the CW is Democrat.
> 

Agreed that gerrymandering can muddy the water, but what makes you certain 
of 26 Rep delegations, considering that the House CAN have a Dem majority?


> Curt

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.