Good Morning, Juho
re: "If we assume that typically similar minded people elect similar
minded people in the groups of three, the method gives some benefit to
groups that are large and tightly bound ..."
That's a fair assumption, except for the "and tightly bound" clause.
The atomized nature of the method (the initially large number of very
small, isolated and independent groups) suggests the 'similar minded
people' must be widely dispersed throughout the electorate rather than
tightly bound.
In an earlier message, you mentioned the need to find a balance between
political and regional proportionality and I expressed the opinion that
the method was inherently proportional. It struck me you did not agree,
or, more properly, that my response did not satisfy the need that
concerned you. After wondering about it, it occurs to me that I
concentrated my attention on the ascendancy of the current will of the
people, without recognizing the possible validity of alternate attitudes
in the electorate.
Should I address that point?
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
