On 1/17/2013 10:49 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
The general pattern I was trying to think of, in any case, was this: the society is too far in one direction (according to the people). Candidate X has a position solidly on the other side and brings the policies in that direction. As X pushes policies towards the center, he gains reputation for doing something well. Then as X goes past the center, the people think "we'll give him some time; he's been right in the past, why shouldn't he still know what he's doing?" And so it takes time before the people recognize how far off the other side X really wants to go. Term limits mitigate this ... I have also been reading about predictor or ensemble systems (like weighted majority voting). In that context, it's like an expert that tends to be very right, but situations change and he suddenly stops being right. It then takes some time for his weight to be reduced, because he has such a high weight already. In dynamic situations (where experts may often shift from being very good to not being good at all), sliding window versions of WMV (or UCB) do better than non-sliding versions. I can find papers for this if you're interested :-)
Currently, in politics there is not a close correlation between voter preferences and who ends up in office, so the tendency you claim does tend to occur.
However, if elections are improved so that there is a high correlation between voter preferences and who ends up in office, then such "over-runs" would quickly lead to a push back to center.
Such over-runs are a component of the concept of "resonance" in Physics. This over-extended "state" quickly lead to an ever-increasing push back to center. Yet, overall, the result is an oscillation that averages out to be centered.
If, after election-method reform, there should be a need to "dampen" such wild swings, there other -- and I believe wiser -- ways to do so.
Richard Fobes ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
