2012/2/5 Kevin Venzke step...@yahoo.fr
--
*De :* Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.com
*À :* electionscie...@googlegroups.com
*Cc :* EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com
*Envoyé le :* Vendredi 3 février 2012 22h06
*Objet :* Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking
FPTP brings us runoffs because they have a need - their voters can
like more than one but cannot vote for more than one in any election.
Majority makes sense for them and they can force that by selecting
among only two in a runoff.
Runoffs are expensive for all involved, so it is not
I believe this topic needs more thought.
Ability to do accurate recounts should be considered essential.
Sooner or later counters will be tempted to adjust counts to help
achieve desired wins - we should consider it unacceptable to tempt
them by letting them hide evidence of such.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Bryan Mills bmi...@alumni.cmu.edu wrote:
Now, despite a 50/50 natural split, the rural party has a 60% supermajority.
And, of course, if you draw the district lines differently you can do the
same thing for the urban party.
This was attempted in Ireland, look
On 02/04/2012 01:07 AM, Kevin Venzke wrote:
Personally I don't understand why one would want to spend time on a
method that you have to defend by saying it might work anyway, even
if as built the incentives are wrong.
I don't know if you're replying to me, but it seems to me that any
I wanted to add that if STV (3-5 seats) with Droop Quota were used
consistently across the US that there'd be 50 states forming the
super-districts and so if there were biases due to gerrymandering some of
them would cancel out...
Also, even though this system is not terribly 3rd party friendly,
