2009/6/10 Juho Laatu <[email protected]> > I just want to agree with this > viewpoint. I have seen e.g. claims > that Condorcet (that can elect > compromise candidates) would favour > candidates that have no strong > opinions. But I haven't found any > serious basis behind these claims. > In all methods candidates try to > seek optimal position and often > that is close to the centrist > opinions. But differences between > different methods don't seem to > be very meaningful. Other matters > in the societies are more important > in determining the behaviour and > style of the candidates.
I guess that Schulze's favour-weak-beathpath property is example of favouring cooperation against confrontation. Any proof or rrebuttal is welcome. > > (Some methods favour large parties > and that may mean some interest in > emphasizing the role of unified > powerful parties etc, but I'm still > quite far from saying that this > would determine the style of > competition between the candidates.) I think that favouring large parties is not the same as favouring cooperation. Actually I would be content with a method which converges to a state where there are at least four major parties. I regard two-party system too static. Could you point me to studies about this?
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
