On 9/9/08, Fred Gohlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suspect we are seeing the process differently. In my view, candidates > can only stand for election in a single district and the only candidates the > electorate will consider are those seeking election from their district: > "I'm Honest Joe, and I'm seeking election from the July 3rd/July 8th > district."
The problem is that a random sample has the same properties as the population itself once the sample size gets large and 1000+ is normally more than enough. The only difference is that it allows a group of voters to focus on 2-3 main candidates, instead of everyone having to look at all the candidates. If voters vote by party, then a party with 51% of the support will almost certainly win most of the seats. > > OK, we'll need a less cumbersome district naming convention, but that's the > idea. Maybe just district 77. However, maybe it might be better to be more informative, like district July three eight. No point in losing potential voters because > I agree that, as you say, it is a 'pure majority system' but it is a > majority of 1/73rd of a diverse cross-section of an electorate of 4,000,000. > In such an situation, there would be no 'safe' seats. For a given party all seats will either by safe or all of them will be unsafe. If you pick 1/73 of a population, then they will almost certainly vote the same way as the population itself. It would be like the legislature being elected one district at a time, with everyone voting on each appointment. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
