On Aug 17, 2008, at 19:44 , Raph Frank wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Continuous elections could also increase the level of
participation in
decision making in the sense that old votes could be valid for a
long time
even if the voter wouldn't bother
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Continuous elections could also increase the level of participation in
> decision making in the sense that old votes could be valid for a long time
> even if the voter wouldn't bother to change the vote often. Well, on the
> other
On Aug 16, 2008, at 0:48 , Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jobst Heitzig said:
> It is of no help for a minority to be represented
proportionally when > still a mere 51% majority can make all
decisions!
I disagree. The advantage is that it allows 'on the fly'
c
Kristofer Munsterhjelm said:
> If there's a static or consistent majority that decide to, as an example,
> exclude minorities,
> that is "democratic", but still not a good state of things, and no amount of
> making the
> democracy more accurately translate the wishes of the majority into action
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jobst Heitzig said:
> It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally when
> still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
I disagree. The advantage is that it allows 'on the fly' coalition
re-organisation.
If all the legislators are elect
Jobst Heitzig said:
>
It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally when
still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
I disagree.? The advantage is that it allows 'on the fly' coalition
re-organisation.
If all the legislators are elected via a single seat system, th
