tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post2320167884373803115..comments2024-01-28T00:20:40.933-08:00Comments on Agoraphilia: Gaming the Electoral CollegeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-256495634078443942009-11-06T23:09:48.818-08:002009-11-06T23:09:48.818-08:00It is nice to know, I really like this, I mean it ...It is nice to know, I really like this, I mean it really looks interesting, for the info.daniel johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02542612372929827946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-79567598154144883022008-02-28T18:24:00.000-08:002008-02-28T18:24:00.000-08:00Interestingly enough, the democratic (and republic...Interestingly enough, the democratic (and republican, I think)caucus and primary rules are often the reverse (by county) of what you are proposing. More delegates are awarded by county for areas carried by the same party in the last general election. <BR/><BR/>My explanation for this one is non-economic. Apart from the democratic "superdelegates", pledged delegates are low level party officials who are chosen to go to the convention. For 99% of the convention goers, it is an opportunity to network and get excited/involved in campaigning. In this case, going to the convention is a reward for staff members, precinct captains and other lower level operations. Campaign operations that reliably get the vote out (as measured imperfectly by the last general election) get rewarded.Protonkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10961736180409883342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-3473939193868748222008-02-25T18:51:00.000-08:002008-02-25T18:51:00.000-08:00A few thoughts:* California has had Republican gov...A few thoughts:<BR/><BR/>* California has had Republican governors before — indeed, doesn't it currently have one? I wouldn't expect it to vote Republican in a Presidential election, but I have to imagine that the Democrats taking delegates away from it probably wouldn't help them at all.<BR/><BR/>* You seem to be assuming that partisans in swing states will tend to choose the candidates that swing voters will prefer; I'm not sure that's a valid assumption. Granted, there are some states (such as New Hampshire and Wisconsin) where independents can and do vote in primaries, but that's not the case in most places — and except possibly in the very special case of New Hampshire, I don't think the independents really decide the primaries anywhere.<BR/><BR/>* These things change over time. Since parties have their National Conventions only once every four years, they couldn't react quickly to political trends that would affect what states merited better weighting. Further, states that are favored under one system might not be so quick to help fix the system toward one that would disfavor them. (I'm assuming here that a subjective system is more susceptible to well-intentioned gaming than a fairly objective one that approximates electoral representation.)Ranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01369980917358096502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-48871062044687348572008-02-25T17:39:00.000-08:002008-02-25T17:39:00.000-08:00Something that seems always to escape attention.If...Something that seems always to escape attention.<BR/><BR/>If the new rules (for any set of "new rules") get in the way of something a lot of power (lot of people with little power, or a few people with a lot of power) want to do, the new rules _will_ be gamed to accomlish the desired result.<BR/><BR/>See The Hours of Service rules for truck drivers for an example. Or see the IRS regulations over time.Larry Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12653436584890594776noreply@blogger.com