Dear Raphfrk you wrote: > One issue with random processes is that they don't work well for a > legislature. A majority would just keep asking that the vote be > repeated until they win it. > Saying that a re-vote cannot occur unless the situation changes would > require that a definition of a change in the situation be decided.
Alternatively, laws could be considered social contracts which have a duration and certain terms of termination which would have to be met by any later decisions to change the law. > Also, people have a certain level of distrust for random processes. > I don't think people would accept a President who was elected even > though he only had a 1% chance of winning. I am not sure what the > threshold is before it would be acceptable (some people would object > to a 49% candidate winning instead of a 51% candidate). This is probably true. I would not recommend such a method for elections of Presidents or the like but for bodies who frequently make individual decisions on issues. Yours, Jobst _______________________________________________________________________ EINE FÜR ALLE: die kostenlose WEB.DE-Plattform für Freunde und Deine Homepage mit eigenem Namen. Jetzt starten! http://unddu.de/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
