Stabilizing the electoral college (was Re: [EM] electoral college)

[Steve Eppley]

Hi,

James G-A replied to Rob B:
-snip-
> 	If I lived in a swing state, I would be all for 
> a proportional allocation. It's just more fair, 
> less unstable. Who really wants to be in the middle 
> of the kind of craziness that they have in Florida 
> these days?

There's another way besides proportionality to make it 
more stable.  Right now it's *pure* winner-takes-all,
which has a sharp swing of delegates at the 50% +-1 point:
                       ---------------------
                      |
                      |
----------------------

Suppose instead it were winner-takes-all except when 
the vote is really close:
                        ---------------------
                       /
                      /
----------------------

I've exaggerated because of the limitations of the 
text font.  When I say "really close" I'm thinking 
about within 1%, or maybe 1/2%.  

This would make recounts less important, since they
could only change the outcome by 1 delegate or so, 
assuming the initial count isn't attrocious or 
fraudulent.

--Steve