[QUOTE=cheesehead;129842]Discover magazine's November 1996 issue had an excellent article, "Math Against Tyranny" by Will Hively. It's the best defense I've personally found.

[URL]http://discovermagazine.com/1996/nov/mathagainsttyran914[/URL]
[/QUOTE]

Thanks- The Hively/Natapoff article is indeed very good; it should be re-printed occasionally in the popular press. It expresses very well some concepts I already understood, but would have trouble explaining.

That said, I still think the EC is outdated and arbitrary. Natapoff's correlation of the EC system to the World Series is a good example. He
points out that the winner is the team that wins the most games in the series, not the team that scores the most runs in the series. It is based
on the arbitrary unit of games. It might just as well be based on innings. Win the most innings, and you win the series, even if you scored fewer
runs and won fewer games (which are typically based on the runs). There would be some interesting, novel strategies if the basic unit of a
world series was an inning.

So why base the EC on states? Originally, it was probably a good idea, given geography, local government, etc., but now, to me, its outdated
and arbitrary. Why not make the EC units some other arbitrary unit: economic groups, age groups, letters of the last name, elevation of the home address?

Natapoff's math explanation of the value of the EC is good; his description of an individual voter's power, and how the voter's power increases and decreases based on electorate size, preferences, and the EC system. But that math reasoning wasn't on the minds of the founders when the EC was put in place.

There are already plenty of "protections" in place against the "tyranny of the masses". The state's populaces elect representatives, who themselves are distributed in two units of government (House and Senate) by two different methods (by population in the House, and simply 2 per state in the Senate). We don't elect the judicial branch (Supreme Court is appointed, of course). Why not have the one key individual in the executive branch elected by simple popular vote?

Norm

[quote=Spherical Cow;129916]That said, I still think the EC is outdated and arbitrary. Natapoff's correlation of the EC system to the World Series is a good example. He
points out that the winner is the team that wins the most games in the series, not the team that scores the most runs in the series. It is based
on the arbitrary unit of games.[/quote]Because according to the Official Rules of baseball ([URL]http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/foreword.jsp[/URL]), winning and losing are defined in relation to games ([URL]http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/01_objectives_of_the_game.pdf[/URL]).

[quote]It might just as well be based on innings.[/quote]But that would be a different sport. (Cricket? BTW, what does "178 for 3" mean, anyway?)

[quote]Win the most innings, and you win the series, even if you scored fewer runs and won fewer games (which are typically based on the runs).[/quote]But that would require a fundamental revision of baseball rules, greatly changing the nature of the sport.

[quote]So why base the EC on states?[/quote]3. Ummm ... because of the second word in "United States of America"?

2. The political units that ratified the Constitution were ... states.

1. Because that's what the Official Rules of the Government of the United States of America, AKA the U.S. Constitution, says.

[quote]Originally, it was probably a good idea, given geography, local government, etc., but now, to me, its outdated and arbitrary. Why not make the EC units some other arbitrary unit: economic groups, age groups, letters of the last name, elevation of the home address?[/quote]Because the states, who are still the political entities who would have to ratify such a change to the Constitution, would never agree to that. What you want is an overthrow of the U.S. government, which is kind of an overkill in regard to Electoral College reform. :-)

[quote]Natapoff's math explanation of the value of the EC is good; his description of an individual voter's power, and how the voter's power increases and decreases based on electorate size, preferences, and the EC system. But that math reasoning wasn't on the minds of the founders when the EC was put in place.[/quote]No, it's a serendipitous modern discovery that validates the political instincts of the Founding Fathers.

[quote]There are already plenty of "protections" in place against the "tyranny of the masses".[/quote]... in regard to [I]presidential[/I] elections? What are they, besides the Electoral College?

[quote]The state's populaces elect representatives, who themselves are distributed in two units of government (House and Senate) by two different methods (by population in the House, and simply 2 per state in the Senate).[/quote]... which is the legislative branch, not the executive branch.

[quote]We don't elect the judicial branch (Supreme Court is appointed, of course).[/quote]... which is the judicial branch, not the executive branch.

[quote]Why not have the one key individual in the executive branch elected by simple popular vote?[/quote]Because of the arguments presented by Natapoff and Hively.

And it's not in the Official Rules, that's why not.

[quote=cheesehead;129947]3. Ummm ... because of the second word in "United States of America"?

2. The political units that ratified the Constitution were ... states.

1. Because that's what the Official Rules of the Government of the United States of America, AKA the U.S. Constitution, says.[/quote]Although we crossed swords about 50 posts ago :smile:, I find myself in vehement agreement with you cheesehead. Clearly, this is a fairly ethereal conversation here, but if one were to seriously prescribe a popular vote as a new methodology -- the medicine is completely disproportionate to the disease (to the degree one might even think there is a problem in the first place). Besides, as you rightly point out -- any change to the system would [I]never[/I] pass the Constitutional amendment process.

P.S. My kids got a great chuckle from your avatar today...

[QUOTE=cheesehead;129947]Because according to the Official Rules of baseball ([URL]http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/foreword.jsp[/URL]), winning and losing are defined in relation to games ([URL]http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/01_objectives_of_the_game.pdf[/URL]).

But that would be a different sport. (Cricket? BTW, what does "178 for 3" mean, anyway?)

But that would require a fundamental revision of baseball rules, greatly changing the nature of the sport.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, those are the rules. That's obvious. They play baseball by those rules, and we elect presidents by the EC rules. Nobody said anything different.

What I did say is that the rules are arbitrary and outdated. Rules can be changed; there is now a shot clock in basketball, when there didn't use to be-they changed the rules. There's now a 3-point line in basketball when there didn't use to be- they changed the rules. There's a designated hitter in one league but not the other- they changed the rules. If there were a good reason to change the World Series to inning-based units instead of game-based units, then change the rules.

And I say change the rules for electing a president so that the president is elected by simple popular vote. Four times now, the popular vote winner has been the loser of the election; that's 10% of the people that have occupied that office (but no, not 10% of elections, I know.)

Norm

[quote=Zeta-Flux;130019]LOL! Missed that comment! Good point.[/quote]In keeping with that, perhaps China should [I]encourage[/I] [url=http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10163]same-sex marriage[/url] as another means of population control?
:threadhijacked:

So.... how about that John McCain?

[QUOTE=Spherical Cow;129993]Yes, those are the rules. That's obvious. They play baseball by those rules, and we elect presidents by the EC rules. Nobody said anything different.

What I did say is that the rules are arbitrary and outdated. Rules can be changed;[/QUOTE]

Changing the fundamentals of government is not the same as adding a goal-tending provision in BasketBall. It is a serious matter. Many still think that having the senators being directly elected was a bad change. They represent the states, and thus should be elected by the state government.

"Is Al Gore The Answer?"

[URL]http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1725678,00.html[/URL]

[quote=Spherical Cow;129993]Rules can be changed; there is now a shot clock in basketball, when there didn't use to be-they changed the rules. There's now a 3-point line in basketball when there didn't use to be- they changed the rules. There's a designated hitter in one league but not the other- they changed the rules.[/quote]IMO (though this is arguable) none of those was as fundamental a change as a switch from EC to popular vote would be.

[quote]If there were a good reason to change the World Series to inning-based units instead of game-based units, then change the rules.

And I say change the rules for electing a president so that the president is elected by simple popular vote.[/quote]But you have to have a "good reason" for that change. Along with Natapoff and Hively, I think the popular-vote-winner-once-in-a-while-loses-in-EC argument is not a good enough reason.

Show us your refutation of Natapoff & Hively.

In particular, exactly what are those "plenty of 'protections' in place against the 'tyranny of the masses'" in regard to [I]presidential[/I] elections? (And what did your quotes around "protections" mean?)

Here's an interesting take on the Democratic contest from 15 months ago:

"Why They're Both Running Against Bill"

[URL]http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1574160,00.html[/URL]

What I find most interesting, and still very relevant now, are the final three paragraphs, explaining Bill Clinton's talents and contrasting them with Hillary's.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;130043] Many still think that having the senators being directly elected was a bad change. They represent the states, and thus should be elected by the state government.[/QUOTE]

Interesting; I did not realize, or may have simply forgotten, that senators were not always directly elected. I'll have to back up and see when, why, and how that change came about.

And I agree wholeheartedly that changing the rules of government is far, far more important than sports, and it should be approached with great caution. Contrary to Cheesehead's exaggeration, I don't advocate overthrowing the government. The article about the Natapoff work made use of sports scoring rules as an example, and I just continued with the analogy.

Norm

Am I the only person who thinks that a change to an entirely "Popular Vote" system is a bad idea until we reinstitute a test for the right to vote? We already have a lack of voting by most people who are legally allowed to vote in the US. The ones who do wouldn't be allowed to vote if voting was based on actually knowing about all the issues. I think the Electoral College protects the country from the idiots who vote without knowing what they're voting for in the first place or "one issue" voters like some of the Fundies.