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 hand
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 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'
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,
[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
Hello all,
although I did not follow all of the discussion so far, the following
question strikes me:
Why the hell do you care about proportional representation of minorities
when the representative body itself does not decide with a method that
ensures a proportional distribution of power?
Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Hello all,
although I did not follow all of the discussion so far, the following
question strikes me:
Why the hell do you care about proportional representation of minorities
when the representative body itself does not decide with a method that
ensures a proportional
