On 2.7.2012, at 13.58, Raph Frank wrote:
For example, 26 parties at 1.5% and one party at 61% for a 49 seat parliament
would split the seats, 20 for the large party and 29 for split between the
micro parties. The micro parties get 59% of the seats for 39% of the vote.
I only now checked
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Michael Ossipoff email9648...@gmail.comwrote:
Raph:
Looking again at your Sainte-Lague splitting-strategy example, I don't
think that the situation is quite as bad as you said.
The smaller group, with 39% of the voters ends up with only 53% of the
seats,
On 07/08/2012 07:04 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Kristofer
re: Whether this [the assertion that elections impart upon a
system an element of aristocracy] is a good or bad thing
depends upon whether you think aristocracy can work. In
this sense, 'aristocracy' means rule by the best, i.e.
On 07/09/2012 06:33 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
SL/Webster minimizes the SL index, right? It's known that Webster has
_no_ bias if the distribution-condition that I described obtains--the
uniform distribution condition.
I'm not a statistician either, and so this is just a tentative
When runoffs are subjected to criterion analysis, one usually considers
voters to vote in the same order in each round. If they prefer A to B in
the first round, and A and B remain in the second round, they'll vote A
over B in the second round.
This may not necessarily fit reality. Voters may
On Jul 10, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
When runoffs are subjected to criterion analysis, one usually
considers voters to vote in the same order in each round. If they
prefer A to B in the first round, and A and B remain in the second
round, they'll vote A over B in the
Contrary to what I said before, LR, not SL, makes the overall s/q more
equal in Raph's SL bad-example.
When the small parties are considered as a whole, their overall s/q is more
nearly equal to that of the big party in LR, as compared to in SL. And for
both sets of voters (small and big party
This could make for boring runoffs in many cases. To solve that problem, it
might be possible to reduce the pressure for people to vote in the runoff,
by making it so the first-round winner is not supplanted unless the turnout
in the runoff is high enough. For instance, if the first round were
Good Afternoon, Kristofer
re: If we consider representative democracy as a proxy for
direct democracy, to make the latter managable, then we
could be even stronger: we'd want representatives that would
act as we would if we had sufficient information and time.
That's a good way
On 7/10/12 6:51 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
When runoffs are subjected to criterion analysis, one usually
considers voters to vote in the same order in each round. If they
prefer A to B in the first round,
now how is this known, without a ranked ballot?
and A and B remain in the second
Good Afternoon, Dave
re: I would not do away with primaries - instead I would do away
with Plurality and leave primaries to any party that still
saw value in them.
I believe the discussion was more about opening primaries to the public
than to eliminating them.
re: I see value in
Good Afternoon, alabio
I, too, bridled at 'aristocracy' when I first read it. But, as I read
the rest of Kristofer's message, his meaning was clear. I see he has
already answered you, so I'll leave it there.
Can you help us achieve a meritocracy? What are some of the elements we
must
Good Afternoon, Michael
re: The public may include partisans, of course, but they would
vote together with everyone else when it comes to public
decisions. That's the crucial thing.
I agree that it's a crucial issue, but, as far as this discussion has
advanced, we've yet to suggest
Good Afternoon, Mr. Hoffard
Your post does not seem to address the issue of non-partisans, yet they
are, by far, the majority of the electorate (whether or not they
actually vote). Is the implication that they should only be allowed to
vote for a candidate sponsored by a party a correct
On Jul 10, 2012, at 3:49 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Afternoon, Dave
re: I would not do away with primaries - instead I would do away
with Plurality and leave primaries to any party that still
saw value in them.
I believe the discussion was more about opening primaries to the
public
15 matches
Mail list logo
