Furthermore, what we call "election methods" have many applications beyond public elections. We call the alternatives "candidates" because that is a colorful case that interests a lot of people.
Forest On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Alex Small wrote: > John B. Hodges said: > > Some time back I asked why the folks here worked so hard to find > > other methods of Proportional Representation when we had Party List and > > STV, which seemed to cover all the necessary bases. People > > responded with their complaints about both methods. > > Well, many of us are interested in election methods for intellectual > reasons as well as practical reasons. Yes, we want to see better election > methods implemented, but we are also personally intrigued by some of the > intellectual issues related to election methods. Devising a different > election method to satisfy some criterion might help us understand what is > necessary in order to satisfy that criterion, and hence why certain > phenomena can occur. > > The hope is that some of this can later be used to inform the design of > simpler election methods, or at least enrich our personal understanding. > Even if we (hypothetically, mind you, let's not open old debates just now) > never proposed anything more complicated than Approval and Party List in > public discussions, a deeper personal understanding would help us when > questions arise. > > Also, there is a small group of professionals who study election methods > for a living. In any campaign to introduce a new election method > (whatever it might be) we will almost certainly butt heads with some of > them (e.g. Saari). We need to know what we're talking about. So an > academic understanding of the deeper mathematical issues is worth having, > and proposing arcane methods for fun on this forum may be a good way to > enhance that understanding. > > > > Alex > > > ---- > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info