On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:34:51 -0700 Bob Richard wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
> We have to be doing different topics.
I'm afraid that Dave and James Gilmour are indeed "doing different
topics". I gather that, for Dave, it is taken for granted that elections
are held to fill a single seat (or executive branch office). The choice
between winner-take-all in single-member districts and PR just isn't
part of this discussion. I'm afraid that's true of an awful lot of
discussions held within the framework of social choice theory.
For James, I suspect that the choice between winner-take-all and PR is
fundamental. It's definitely fundamental for me.
Interesting that this exchange started in a post where I began with
"Plurality does fine with two candidates, or with one obvious winner over
others. It is unable...".
I was arguing against Plurality and for Condorcet, but it seems like method
matters little when, for whatever reason, there are either:
Only two candidates to pick one from or
One candidate expects a strong majority of the votes.
I admit to spending little effort on PR, partly because I cannot now vote
in such elections - but see need to try to improve single seat, as in
electing a mayor.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
