Personnaly, at first glance, this clear majority definition seems acceptable to me.
Was it considered or proposed to the Ontario sssembly? Did they vote on it? >From: Howard Swerdfeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: election-methods@electorama.com >To: Elisabeth Varin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: election-methods@electorama.com >Subject: Re: [EM] Quebec election - references... >Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:54:03 -0400 > > > > This site is slightly biased toward the PLQ, however you can download > > a detailed prediction, seat by seat under the projection file. > > > > http://democraticspace.com/blog/quebec2007/ > > http://democraticspace.com/blog/category/canadian-politics/quebec2007/ > > > > I think that the result will be PQ minoritarian, but with the PLQ >receiving > > more votes than PQ. PLQ delayed PR application despite its own promises > > and electoral program. > >if you are interested in the Quebec election, you might be interested in >this. > >http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2007-March/019859.html > >The Thread is titled "divided house problem of close vote (50%+1)" > >I started thinking about this problem when I heard lots of people >complaining that the double super majority required in the Ontario and >BC referendums (60% popular vote + 60% of the ridings) on electoral >reform were undemocratic. While I agree with them I couldn't help >thinking that the solution they proposed (50%+1) was also undemocratic, >and given to random chance. Thinking back to 1995 the Quebec referendum >was not so much a victory for the "No" in my opinion as it was a >"Tie". >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum >and at the risk of (mis)quoting Rex Murphy >"Had it been a little more rainy in Montreal, we might have had a >different result." > >Then you look at other factors that largely effect the outcome. >Like > * When you ask the question. >Leaders like Charest, Dion, Harper, Chrétien: are constantly watching >the polls, to try and think when they can get the result that favours >them the most. >Cherest, tried to take advantage of the fact that Boisclair is not at >all liked., by calling the election. He obviously failed to account for >the fact that most people hate him also. > >So, In my opinion 50% +1 or -1 is far to easy for the people in power to >influence and far to vulnerable to random noise. But I also think that >Super majority criteria are anti democratic as well. They can lead to >minority rule. > >So I came up with this basic idea, based on a simple neuron model by >asking the question multiple times with a super majority threshold. your > score is >Score = 'Old Score' + 'Yes%' - 50% >with criteria to automatically re-ask the question, if the result is close. > >check out the thread, or post questions if you are at all interested. > >any way in conclusion >"Vive le Québec! Vive le Canada Français!" > > > >---- >election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
