From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Mon Nov 13 2000 - 12:15:13 MST
This is a good example, and if your three states have a federal constitution
that says it may be amended by only a simple majority of congress and 2/3 of the
states, you would have problems (assuming you have more than one congressman
from each state, or that the party of the presidential winner also wins that
congressional seat.) Fortunately things are more complex than that, although if
its up to the president to appoint supreme court judges, and those judges have
the ability to redefine what words in the constitution actually mean, then you
would then be in trouble.
Brian D Williams wrote:
>
> I thought I'd create a simple version of the electoral problem as
> I see it.
>
> Okay we have two candidates X and Y.
>
> They live in a country with 3 states (A,B,C) each has 100 voters.
>
> Each state has 1 electoral vote, winner take all.
>
> Whoever gets 2 electoral votes wins.
>
> X is Anti-gun
> Y is Pro-gun
>
> Okay state A is pretty normal, but Joe Dees lives there so
> Candidate X wins 51/49.
>
> Candidate Votes Electoral
> X 51 1
> Y 49 0
>
> Now we go to state B which is also pretty normal, But Zero lives
> there so once again X wins 51/49.
>
> Candidate Votes Electoral
> X 102 2
> Y 98 0
>
> Now we are in state C. Now candidate X has never even gone to visit
> C. Why? Brian, Mike, Chuck, Ron, and all the others who believe inthe right to defend themselves live there, it's a big NRA
> stronghold, so the vote goes 99/1 for Y.
>
> Candidate Votes Electoral
> X 103 2
> Y 197 1
>
> So X wins with barely 1/3rd of the vote.
>
> State C decides to secede. ;)
>
> Brian
>
> Member:
> Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
> Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
> Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
> National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
> Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:56 MST