At 01:34 PM 2/6/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [a series of comments which appear to be motivated by animosity, from which I'm only extracting one.] >As for the remainder of your comments, including your advocacy >of Asset Voting, these are just the kinds of comments about "actual >political work" that you have just claimed this list is not intended for.
I did not claim that this list was not "for actual political work," but that clearly it *was*, from the vast numbers of posts regarding it, clearly *for* theoretical work. Mr. Suter had decried theoretical analysis and discussion essentially on the basis that it was politically useless. So? Maybe now it is. Not necessarily forever. >Asset Voting is actually a terrible as well as impractical form >of representation. Any theoretical advantages it has are far >outweighed by its serious theoretical disadvantages and its >impracticality. Note that there is a severe paucity of such comment. I haven't seen *one* theoretical disadvantage. But perhaps I've missed it. As to practicality, well, much discussion here is of methods that aren't practical *now.* But they might be someday, somewhere. Mr. Suter's comments are essentially useless. If Asset is "terrible," either theoretically or practically, surely it would be useful to tell us *why* and *how*! ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
