On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:00:06 -0700 rob brown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Kathy Dopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:28 PM, rob brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How? Do we want an infinite loop of a
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
(most of Dave's comments snipped out, I responded to only a few)
Open source is ESSENTIAL:
While it encourages quality programming by those who do not want to get
caught doing otherwise, it also encourages thorough testing
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,
Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Now, I have the impression that a slight modification of the tax formula may
reduce this incentive considerably. Consider this tax:
?? sum { R(W,k) - R(W(i),k)
?? + sum { ( R(W(i),k) - R(W(i,j),k) ) / 2
?? : j different from i and k }
?? : k different from i }
where
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Or do we want the voter to be able to cancel the ballot and let
the poll workers know that he needs a paper ballot instead that
he can mark himself?
I'm fine with the latter. Actually that seems like a reasonable
thing to do.
I agree,
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!
raphfrk replied
I disagree. The advantage is that it allows 'on the fly'
coalition re-organisation.
I also disagree, but for a different reason
On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:40 AM, James Gilmour 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!
raphfrk replied
I disagree. The advantage is that it allows 'on the fly'
coalition
Some more observations on the benefits of minority representation
(and problem too).
It is much easier to make decisions against the interests of some
minority when they are not in the room when compared to the situation
where they sit in the room and give comments on the proposals.
The
On Aug 15, 2008, at 18:45 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:40 AM, James Gilmour 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!
raphfrk replied
I disagree. The advantage is
Chris Benham wrote:
*Kristofer Munsterhjelm* wrote (Sun. Aug.10):
There's also the it smells fishy that nonmonotonicity - of any kind or
frequency - evokes. I think that's stronger for nonmonotonicity than for
things like strategy vulnerability because it's an error that appears in
the method
On Aug 15, 2008, at 9:23 AM, Juho wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 18:45 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:40 AM, James Gilmour 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!
On Aug 15, 2008, at 22:27 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 9:23 AM, Juho wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 18:45 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:40 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
Jobst Heitzig said:
It is of no help for a minority to be represented
proportionally when
[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
On Aug 15, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Also, such a scheme would be, I think, highly susceptible to
agenda manipulation: who decides which issue is to be effectively
on the ballot, and who decides that the candidates associated with
X and not-X are sincere?
Citizens are
Also, such a scheme would be, I think, highly susceptible to agenda
manipulation: who decides which issue is to be effectively on the
ballot, and who decides that the candidates associated with X and
not-X are sincere?
Citizens are free to form such lists. Each list may support and oppose
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
I could see a kind of proxy front end to STV elections. I'm not sure
I'm convinced it would be a good idea, or even practical to implement,
but suppose that any person or group (including parties) could
register an STV ranking, and a voter could select that ranking
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:01:10 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Or do we want the voter to be able to cancel the ballot and let
the poll workers know that he needs a paper ballot instead that
he can mark himself?
I'm fine with the latter.
17 matches
Mail list logo
