Three Bizarre Presidential-Election Scenarios: The Perils of Simplism
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Good article! I have some editorial comments that I will offer via page and line noting.
Page 1, first sentence, line 20. I suggest that you change “might-have-been” and “might be” to possible. Your first sentence is key to grabbing the reader and the might have been reads too wishy washy and inappropriate for a scholarly journal article.
2nd, paragraph, lines 28-31, please develop the paragraph with one to two more sentences. You are on to something here, but have not offered any analysis.
3rd paragraph, line 38. Why? Explain better.
Page 4, lots of short, choppy paragraphs. Perhaps review and see if there is a way to combine some of the brief points in lines 158-170.
Page 5, line 177, please use a better word than ditch. Maybe you could use change, augment or rid? Colloquial speech is fine for face to face speech, but in a scholarly journal article please be more careful with some of your word choices
Pages 6-9–great discussion.
Page 10, lines 370-374, Please develop with one to two more sentences. I am looking for your analysis here.
Lines 388-89, This is not a paragraph so you should either say more, combine with another paragraph or delete.
Page 11, lines 446-449, Again, not a paragraph. Same comment as above.
Page 19, lines 658-661, Is this a footnote? If you’re going to include it in the body it needs more developing. A good point, but right now, it reads like it should be a footnote.
Page 20, Line 679-680. Please develop your conclusion. Say more, and offer some concrete analysis. End on a strong note.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
I thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions. I have copied them below, changed them to italics, and then provided my response (not in italics) below each point. The page and line numbers in each response refer, of course, to the revised (docx) manuscript that I am now submitting. My changes (consisting mostly of additions) are highlighted in yellow on the revised manuscript.
Please note that the pdf version of my manuscript that went to reviewers was not the same (with respect to page and line numbers) as the pdf version that I found on the MDPI website. I think the two versions were the same at least through the end of Section 3. But, for the reviewer's last two comments, they were obviously not the same, so I had to guess (I hope correctly) as to the lines to which the reviewer was referring.
******************************************
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Good article! I have some editorial comments that I will offer via page and line noting.
Page 1, first sentence, line 20. I suggest that you change “might-have-been” and “might be” to possible. Your first sentence is key to grabbing the reader and the might have been reads too wishy washy and inappropriate for a scholarly journal article.
● I changed ""might-have-been or might-be" to "possible", per the reviewer's suggestion (page 1, line 20).
2nd, paragraph, lines 28-31, please develop the paragraph with one to two more sentences. You are on to something here, but have not offered any analysis.
● I added two sentences at the end to elaborate (page 1, lines 32-38).
3rd paragraph, line 38. Why? Explain better.
● I interpreted this comment to mean that the reviewer was asking for some explanation as to why Saari dissented. I added a sentence (page 2, lines 45-46).
Page 4, lots of short, choppy paragraphs. Perhaps review and see if there is a way to combine some of the brief points in lines 158-170.
● Each of these paragraphs deals with a separate matter, so I saw no good way to combine any of them. But I did add some extra wording (page 4, lines 168 and 170) as well as a new sentence (page 5, lines 175-176) to try to make the development smoother.
Page 5, line 177, please use a better word than ditch. Maybe you could use change, augment or rid? Colloquial speech is fine for face to face speech, but in a scholarly journal article please be more careful with some of your word choices
● I changed "ditching" to "abolishing" (page 5, line 189).
Pages 6-9–great discussion.
● Thank you.
Page 10, lines 370-374, Please develop with one to two more sentences. I am looking for your analysis here.
● I added a sentence to provide fuller explanation (page 10, lines 393-395).
Lines 388-89, This is not a paragraph so you should either say more, combine with another paragraph or delete.
● I added a sentence to give a bit of detail (page 10, lines 412-413).
Page 11, lines 446-449, Again, not a paragraph. Same comment as above.
● I added a sentence to explain further (page 12, lines 473-474).
Page 19, lines 658-661, Is this a footnote? If you’re going to include it in the body it needs more developing. A good point, but right now, it reads like it should be a footnote.
● This comment is apparently referring to the brief Section 5. I had been afraid that, if I said nothing about the 2016 election, the absence of any mention of 2016 would be quite conspicuous. I have added two sentences, however, for further limited discussion (page 22, lines 695-698).
Page 20, Line 679-680. Please develop your conclusion. Say more, and offer some concrete analysis. End on a strong note.
● I wrote two new paragraphs that I added at the end (page 22, lines 719-737) and have tried to end on as strong a note as possible, although that is not easy to do as I do not consider the outlook to be very bright.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I really enjoyed reading this paper. There aren't enough papers like this that consider hypothetical, yet important possible election outcomes for some of the more pivotal presidential contests over the last several decades. In addition, the writing is very clear, though perhaps a bit colloquial at times. Indeed, I found the unraveling of the paper to sometimes be nothing short of entertaining and I mean this as a compliment. The analysis is rigorous, with examples of a variety of voting methods. There is really only one suggestion I have for the authors. I think the paper concludes rather abruptly. I advise the authors to consider adding one to two additional paragraphs that speak to the complexity of electoral rules and affirms that there really isn't a silver bullet electoral scheme that universally satisfies all voters with respect to who is the victor. This statement is currently absent but it seems to me to be the upshot of the authors' various and interesting analyses of two historic elections (1968 and 2000) and one that has yet to take place (2024).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
I thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions. I fully agree with the suggestion to avoid an abrupt ending, and accordingly I wrote two new paragraphs that now appear at the end of the paper [lines 719-737 on page 22 of the revised (docx) manuscript that I am now submitting]. The first of these paragraphs concerns the problems with measures that try to fix the electoral scheme. The second paragraph makes a necessarily limited effort to be positive by mentioning measures that might apply in the short term.
