George:

Your question has prompted me to make one change in the rules; in paragraph 11, you will see language added in bold. That should make clear that the result of single-shotting would not be that anyone could get more than the maximum (15, for example, in Walker).

Actually, though, there is one way in which massive single-shotting could play some games. If someone were to get a lot of single-shot votes, or if there were a lot of single-shotting going on, a precinct could end up not allocating all of its Convention Votes. For example, if a lot of folks were to single-shot for Candidate A in Walker, so that he or she would actually get more than 1/2 of the votes actually cast in Walker, it could end up with not all of the Convention Votes being allocated. In the most extreme case, suppose Candidate A got 100 votes in Walker, and no one else got any. Walker would then give 15 Convention Votes to Candidate A, and nothing to any of the others. In less extreme cases, the result could be that maybe one or two of the Convention Votes might not be allocated.

Try A gets 100, B gets 25, C get 10, D get 10, E gets 5. Then A would get 15 CV, B would get 5 (25/150 * 30), C would get 2, D would get 2, and E would get 1. This leaves 5 Convention Votes unearned. In that sense, single-shotting could affect the outcome in an somewhat
unforeseen way.

We discussed this notion before, and decided that there is simply no way to guarantee that all Convention Votes will be awarded, because of the extreme case (100-0-0-0-0).

Lloyd Snook (February 15, 2002)