On 9/4/08, Stéphane Rouillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not self-chosen districts ?
Because then the last half of voters would be able to pick
between district already composed of majoritarians ideologies.
Again the least organized and the smallest group would finish splitted
between
Stéphane Rouillon Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:03 AM
STV-PR suffers from three principal problems that are exacerbated when
trying to push the proportionality limit.
Why would you want to try to push the proportionality limit? The law of
diminishing returns applies to
Raph Frank wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general then, any method that acts like Z had never run (when Z is
eliminated) would be resistant to Woodall free-riding.
Right, you can get that benefit from alot of methods. For example,
On 9/4/08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not necessarily PAV, but a method that's based on Approval and would
otherwise be as good as STV, if such a beast exists. What kind of strategy
can be used in PAV?
If a candidate is certain to win, then there is no point in voting for
On 9/4/08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By what law? Since I'm not American, I'm not familiar with the law, and
thus I can't comment on whether this kind of indirect PR would be covered.
Warren covers it here
http://rangevoting.org/PropRep.html
I re-read what I said, and
Hello James,
(for other readers , please let me state again that, in my humble opinion,
STV family of electoral systems are the best multi-winner methods on the
market actually. However, it should not stop us from criticizing aspects we
think could be enhanced. It is not because you have a
Good Afternoon, Stephane Rouillon
I, for one, find your suggestion original and elegant.
You have described a simple way of dividing the people into districts,
independent not only of their geographic location but of their
ideological predispositions, as well. Candidates who seek to
Good Afternoon, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I understand and agree with you
on plurality and two-party dominion, and their off-shoots,
gerrymandering and the various forms of corruption. The difference
between our views seems to be the focus on finding a
Good Afternoon, Raph Frank
Thank you very much for your comments. The material I referred to may
have been extensive, but is not as extensive as a careful contemplation
of this complex topic requires. I did not expect others to study the
material. I supplied it for those who enjoy fresh
I like natural districts, so one approach would be to let people say
and let history decide. The reason why I find natural districts
natural in politics is that when people feel like they are part of
some community it is easier to find consensus and cooperate within
that community. And of
On Sep 3, 2008, at 18:06 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:28 AM, Juho wrote:
I hope this speculation provided something useful. And I hope I
got the Meek's method dynamics right.
Meek completely fixes Woodall free riding. That strategy takes
advantage of the fact that most
Geographical proportionality is one specific dimension. Most other
dimensions could be called political dimensions. Also groupings that
do not live in any specific compact area could be called political
groupings. In principle they could form a party and that way get a
proportional number
On Sep 4, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Juho wrote:
I like natural districts, so one approach would be to let people say
and let history decide. The reason why I find natural districts
natural in politics is that when people feel like they are part of
some community it is easier to find consensus and
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Afternoon, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I understand and agree with you
on plurality and two-party dominion, and their off-shoots,
gerrymandering and the various forms of corruption. The difference
between our views seems to be the
On Sep 5, 2008, at 0:52 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Juho wrote:
I like natural districts, so one approach would be to let people
say and let history decide. The reason why I find natural
districts natural in politics is that when people feel like they
are part
On Sep 4, 2008, at 3:08 PM, Juho wrote:
On Sep 5, 2008, at 0:52 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Juho wrote:
I like natural districts, so one approach would be to let people
say and let history decide. The reason why I find natural
districts natural in politics is
Juho wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 0:59 , Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
I think puzzles and games make good examples of NP-hard problems.
Sokoban is PSPACE-complete, and it's not that difficult to show people
that there are puzzles (like ciphers) where you know if a solution is
right, but it
Jonathan Lundell Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:52 PM
On Sep 4, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Juho wrote:
I like natural districts, so one approach would be to let people say
and let history decide. The reason why I find natural districts
natural in politics is that when people feel like
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One simple approach would be to ask the voters directly about the
(physical/mental) distances. The answers could be of e.g.
Village1Village2Village3... There could be more villages on the
questionnaire than there will be districts.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM, James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not (or should not be) a question of whether or not there is a
consensus at any particular geographical level of community.
The defining factors for the geographical community should be the level at
which the
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point was really that the
ordering of all the candidates should be re-evaluated based on the estimated
probabilities and utilities.
Yeah, lower probability candidates should be moved upwards and higher
probability candidates
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The simplest (not necessarily optimal) approach to implement multiple
dimensions is one where you simply elect representatives starting from the
ones with strongest support (e.g. best candidate of the largest party in the
largest
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That seems wrong to me, but I don't have anything but subjective
impressions. Certainly for my local city council and school board the
community has no more consensus (and perhaps less) than one finds at the
state
Hello Juho,
using age, gender or other virtual dimension to build virtual districts
replaces geographic antagonism by generation antagonism.
The idea is to get equivalent sample that are not opposed by intrinsec
construction.
Thus we may find neutral decision takers that will minimize the
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Stéphane Rouillon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Juho,
using age, gender or other virtual dimension to build virtual districts
replaces geographic antagonism by generation antagonism.
The idea is to get equivalent sample that are not opposed by intrinsec
Dear Raph,
your understanding is perfect.
Of course using still FPTP with virtual districts would typicaly produce an
assembly with all the
seats of the same party. It was designed to be used with an open list
system, as much proportional as possible (to the integrality limit). The
list is
26 matches
Mail list logo
