David, --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] a �crit�: > Kevin Venzke wrote: > > >Are you looking to show that Plurality, for example, is more likely to be > >proportional > >than Condorcet? Random Ballot is easily more proportional than that. Better > >yet, > >put a PR method in your model. > > The one thing the model has demonstrated clearly than anything else is the > truth of what myself and a number of other people on the list have been saying > for a long time - an assembly made up of single seats can be proportional only > by chance.
I don't recall anyone disputing this, though. I would guess that any single-winner method which produces proportional results on the whole, is actually producing garbage results, if you focus on any particular district. Consider Random Ballot to see what I'm getting at. > > Which single seat method you use can have a considerable effect on the > make-up of the assembly though. Plurality is neutral as regards where parties are > positioned on a left-right spectrum, I am astonished that you would call Plurality "neutral" in this respect. > Borda (which tends to be > unpredictable and throw up a minority of odd results) is most favourable to > centrists. But I'm sure you'd agree that the method is too manipulable for this to hold true in the real world (crowding incentive, burial incentive...). Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran�ais ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
