On 9/23/08, Fred Gohlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good Morning, Raph > > re: "The principle is that if you can't advance (best case > scenario), then just make sure nobody else advances (2nd > best scenario)." > > Fortunately, people who would pursue such a course are rare. The majority > of humans are rational, reasonable people. They have to be, for society > could not exist otherwise. >
Maybe. I guess it depends on how dedicated the 'zealot' minority is. However, I could see it boosting the proportion of that kind of person in the final council, zealots come in many forms, religious and political. > "Alternatively, if might mean that the final council ends up > with quite a large range of sizes." > > I have no idea what you are trying to say. What 'range of sizes' are you > referring to? If you lose say 90% of your members per round, then the final council will have a variable size. If the 2nd last round has 100 people, that gives a council of 10, but if it has 30, then that gives a council of 3 (or 30). ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
