As Forest noted: "In the USA (where convenience is right up there with mom and apple pie)some of these proxy ideas just might catch on!"
Indeed, recall that the USA does use a convoluted doubly proxified method every four years in the presidential election! Namely, each state holds an election to choose a slate (of 'Electors') In this contest, a pair - comprising a presidential candidate and a party - is the usual proxy which the average voter sees and for which she votes. In turn (for the twist!) the chosen Electors' sole function is be proxies themselves - namely the state's voters' proxies for electing a president. Joe ----Original Message Follows---- From: Forest Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [EM] Low Tech Proxy P.R. Method- Party Variant, 22 Oct 2001 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:18:39 -0700 (PDT) Can anybody see even one advantage that any of these low tech proxy PR variants has over Craig Layton's open list cumulative/approval method? For Craig's PR proposal see message 7686 of the EM archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/7686 Craig's method is just as low tech (one bit per candidate) as the suggested proxy variants, and is easily adapted [follow his EM message thread!] to give PR results as good as any existing PR method, proxy or not. As far as I can see, the only possible advantage of a proxy PR method is the convenience of just shading one bubble (to designate your proxy) and letting your proxy worry about how to actually vote. Forest _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
