> There has been a great deal of work on voting > science over the past ~200 years. Unfortunately, > the conclusions are "it depends". Is the system > you describe better than the current system? It > depends on what is considered important. > > Here is a summary of vote aggregation methods and > some ways to measure their efficiency and fairness: > > http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/diss/node4.html <snip> I have read something like that before; I've still bookmarked it so I might find a new perspective there when I read it later.
However, the fact that no system is perfect doesn't mean no system is better than the current one. In my proposal, I decided to keep most as it is, but remove the spoiler problem, electors and gerrymandering, and allow the representation of district minorities in the House. As for electors, back when they were introduced they were important people in their states, which the people knew, which would then vote for a president, which the people didn't know. In the present, the people know who runs for president, but not the electors. There still are electors, but they don't have anything to decide anymore these days. -- +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
