Raph Frank wrote:
> > > It might also be worth discussing possible renormalisation of votes
> > > here to cancel out participation bias. Also, it might be worth adding
> > > in actual participation bias in the final election.
>
> It also has the advantage that it encourages voters turnout in the
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> It seems this system would be more stable than I originally thought. Third
> parties could run as parts of the Condorcet party without running much of a
> risk, since they would otherwise get no votes at all. The defection danger
> surfaces when the third parties
Good morning Fred,
> re: "There are 9000 electors in my ward, yet only 32 of them
> decided in favour of these new Councillors?"
>
> Does this mean you disapprove of representative democracy? If so, the
> difference in our views can't be bridged.
Your high regard for it is obvious, because
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:57 AM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Certainly both party and non-party candidates would be permitted in
> Condorcet. If primaries were also used, parties would nominate only primary
> winners. This would not prevent primary losers from running as non-party
>
My goal is using Condorcet, but recognizing that everything costs money, wo
we need to be careful as to expenses.
Thus I see:
Condorcet as the election method.
But then see no value in a "condorcet party".
Also then see no value in primaries, but know parties see value in such.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:25 AM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My goal is using Condorcet, but recognizing that everything costs money, wo
> we need to be careful as to expenses.
>
> Thus I see:
> Condorcet as the election method.
> But then see no value in a "condorcet party".
