[EM] Re: electoral college

[Rob Brown]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:27:50 -0400, James Green-Armytage
<jarmyta at antioch-college.edu> wrote:
>        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?

Well, I guess I would be for it if I was in the minority, and against
it if I was in the majority.  If I am in the majority, I understand
that one is more fair than the others. But if another state's majority
preference is unfairly amplified, I'd like my state's to be amplified
as well.

My observation of politics...cynical though it may be...is that people
care less about fairness than whether their candidate wins.

So.....here's a weird little ammendment to your plan that states might
find more attractive.  What if, say, California proposed a law like
this :

"we will have proportional allocation if at least 4 (out of 5) of
nevada, oregon, new mexico, arizona and washington do as well"

If all  those states (well, 4 of them) signed a similar law, they all
would get proportional allocation, if less than that, no one would be
the "sucker".

Of course you could have it so it doesn't go into effect unless all 50
of the other states do it as well, in which there is *zero*
disadvantage to signing it into law, but it would be less likely to
ever happen.

Basically, it is a way of getting it out of a Prisoners' Dilemma
situation by enforced cooperation.