On 7/14/06, James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Juho Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:22 PM
> > The Scottish situation sounds to me like a multi-party system
> > (that has emerged under different rules) has gotten trapped
> > in a two-party EM, and this kind of mixture is not a pretty
> > matc
James Gilmour wrote:
> Juho Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:22 PM
...
>> Note that subdivision of parties and their alliances and
>> whatever other groupings add tools to the voter to express
>> what she wants. Also models where STV like ordering is not
>> used but the vote to James automatically
--- James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note that subdivision of parties and their alliances and
> > whatever other groupings add tools to the voter to express
> > what she wants. Also models where STV like ordering is not
> > used but the vote to James automatically goes to the smalle
This method is based on rankings with truncations and approval cutoffs.
Let X be the candidate approved on the greatest number of ballots. Let Y be
the candidate ranked on the greatest number of ballots.
If X and Y are the same candidate, then this candidate wins.
Otherwise, a ballot is
> Claes Wallin Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:25 PM
> > James Gilmour wrote:
> > If you want a bicameral legislature, why would you want one chamber
> > elected so that it is unrepresentative of those who voted for its
> > members? You can have both districts and PR for the same chamber. Of
> >
James Gilmour wrote:
> If you want a bicameral legislature, why would you want one chamber
> elected so that it is unrepresentative of those who voted for its
> members? You can have both districts and PR for the same chamber.
> Of course, you cannot have single-member districts and PR, but STV-PR
