Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton and Complex Analysis : -)
From: gadberry@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu (Mike Gadberry)
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:27:46 GMT
 <1992Nov3.135411.1621@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <9067@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> <1992Nov4.054813.20137@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>

In article <1992Nov4.054813.20137@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, rivin@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Igor Rivin) writes:
|> In article <9067@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> gadberry@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu (Mike Gadberry) writes:
|> >
|> >	There is anecdotal evidence that Abraham Lincoln was profoundly influenced
|> >by the beauty of Euclid's Elements, and the existence of the electoral college
|> >indicates that some of the framers of the American Way (notably Alexander 
|> >Hamilton) had a sophisticated understanding of the mathematical subtlties of 
|> >voting systems far ahead of their times.  (Disenfranchisement and fair voting
|> >models have only been systematically studied using mathematical tools quite 
|> >recently.)
|> >	-Mike gadberry@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu
|> 
|> 
|> Does the electoral college actually help in fairness? I was under the
|> impression that it was a purely political compromise to augment
|> states' rights, so it would interesting if it actually serves an a
|> posteriori purpose...
Point well taken, and a good question.  In the Federalist Papers, and in 
Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Debates of 1789, there is good evidence
that many, if not most, of the statesmen, had considerable insight into the
scientific investigations of their day with respect to voting models and models
for republican government.  I don't believe that is the case among American
statesmen today.  I get the shivers every time I hear the occassional rumbles
about a constitutional convention.  Back in the 1970's and 1980's, there was
a considerable amount of work, (I believe largely at U. North Carolina-Chapel
Hill,) analyzing voting systems.  There are several references to this
literature in Maki & Thompson's  book "Mathematical Models and Applications".  
It makes a great topic for courses in Mathematical Models, and I have used it 
that way. Students are invariably amazed when they discover the inherent 
systematic inequities of the "one person, one vote" system, and I'm happy to
say a number of political science majors develop a determination to overcome
their culturally induced ignorance of (and often contempt for) mathematics.
There's a lot of good math (largely related to game theory) here.
	I beg the question as to whether the electoral college is actually
fair, by saying "fair with respect to what?".  I'm not sure this is the right
place to address that question, unless people would be interested in trading
information about the merits and limitations of the various mathematical models
that have been proposed.  If there is some interest, I can post a list of 
references we should all be familiar with before discussing the issue.  
*RSVP by e-mail, expressing interest, and suggesting references.*  This area of
mathematics is not my area of expertise, but I do find it interesting.
	(I have already gotten one posting pointing out that Condorcet was 
working in this area in 1785.  It's a testimony to the quality of scholarship
at the highest levels of early American government that they were struggling 
more or less successfully with the same problems at the same time.  My post was
in response to a query about the mathematical capacities of our current leaders,
and our historical leaders, and what the ramifications might be if our current
leaders are invincibly ignorant with respect to mathematics.)
	-Mike gadberry@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu
	 Neural Processes in Cognition Program- University of Pittsburgh
Newsgroups: sci.math