The variations in "x", particularly among low-info voters as we predominantly have in the USA, are too small to put a lot of time/energy into trying to get it perfect. It just lowers the p because of the proliferation of election rules trying to become numero uno.
But how else do we make "more local" elections become competitive and interesting than thru the use of multi-winner PR elections? dlw On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >>> If I've read you correctly here, it seems to me that you should sign the >>> statement. You agree with everything it says, even if you wish it said some >>> other things. And if you're truly being open-minded about this, you will >>> want to avoid the circular logic involved in not signing. ("I won't sign it >>> because it doesn't have wide enough support.") >>> >> >> dlw: Ah, but I can't support giving a lot of attention to single-winner >> reforms when the empirical evidence suggests that it's the mix of >> multi-winner and single-winner that is of far greater import. >> >> > Seriously? You won't eat our chips and fish, because that's the wrong way > around? > > Jameson >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info