Mike Ossipoff:
re: ...including ones whose proposals and procedures are
democratic. (posted in response to: My comment was not
referring to democracies, it was referring to parties)
Parties are not democratic, either in relation to the entire electorate
or in relation to their own
Fred:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
You said:
Mike Ossipoff:
re: ...including ones whose proposals and procedures are
democratic. (posted in response to: My comment was not
referring to democracies, it was referring to parties)
I haven't been following this discussion closely, but I've long thought
that the best way of allocating seats to multi-member districts is to
just say that subject to every district having at least one seat we do
the allocation after the votes have been cast, based on the numbers of
people who
I'd be happy to try that somewhere. Only those votes count that are cast.
This approach could be seen as less fair than the traditional population based
allocation, since those people that didn't vote in some district will not be
represented at all. In allocation between parties also non-voters
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 3:32 PM, C.Benham cbenha...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
I haven't been following this discussion closely, but I've long thought
that the best way of allocating seats to multi-member districts is to just
say that subject to every district having at least one seat we do the
I always advocatred SL (Sainte-Lague) over dH (d'Hondt) for party list PR,
because, if you're using PR it's because you want proportionality, and if
you want proportionality, then you want SL.
Then, more recently, I said that, since I don't think that we need PR
anyway (though I have nothing
On 2.7.2012, at 1.05, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
There's no reason why, STV, voting for and electing candidates, couldn't be
used in each multimember district, with the parties afterwards topped-up
according to a national at-large list-PR allocation.
STV ballots may rank candidates of multiple
On 2.7.2012, at 1.51, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
I always advocatred SL (Sainte-Lague) over dH (d'Hondt) for party list PR,
because, if you're using PR it's because you want proportionality, and if
you want proportionality, then you want SL.
Then, more recently, I said that, since I don't
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 2.7.2012, at 1.51, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
I always advocatred SL (Sainte-Lague) over dH (d'Hondt) for party list
PR, because, if you're using PR it's because you want proportionality, and
if you want
Quoting me:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 2.7.2012, at 1.05, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
There's no reason why, STV, voting for and electing candidates, couldn't
be used in each multimember district, with the parties afterwards topped-up
according to
10 matches
Mail list logo
