Re: [EM] Re to Kristof M

2011-12-02 Thread David L Wetzell
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > David L Wetzell wrote: > > >> >> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:20 PM, David L Wetzell > wetze...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>Here's a bunch of responses >>> >> >> dlw: SL may be more proportional than LR Hare, but since I'm advocating >

Re: [EM] Re to Kristof M

2011-12-02 Thread Kristofer Munsterhjelm
David L Wetzell wrote: On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:20 PM, David L Wetzell > wrote: Here's a bunch of responses dlw: SL may be more proportional than LR Hare, but since I'm advocating for the use of a mix of single-winner and multi-winner election rules, I ha

Re: [EM] Re to Kristof M

2011-11-27 Thread David L Wetzell
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:20 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: > Here's a bunch of responses > dlw: SL may be more proportional than LR Hare, but since I'm advocating for the use of a mix of single-winner and multi-winner election rules, I have no problems with the former being biased towards bigger pa

Re: [EM] Re to Kristof M

2011-11-27 Thread Kristofer Munsterhjelm
David L Wetzell wrote: Here's a bunch of responses (...) Could you resend this? Your quoting doesn't seem to have worked correctly here, and you have some quoted parts where there's no response, such as the part about the turnout effects being weak, or the Lijphard citation. I'm not sure if

[EM] Re to Kristof M

2011-11-26 Thread David L Wetzell
Here's a bunch of responses dlw:My approach replaces STV with LR Hare, I guess I don't really care whether rankings get used or not, but I do like having fewer seats with PR with a Hare Quota, so we can avoid those arbitrary percentage restrictions. It lets third parties decide who's the party-in