2012/2/22 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Jameson Quinn <[email protected]> >> To: David L Wetzell <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:16:57 -0600 >> Subject: Re: [EM] Kevin V. and Rich F. >> >>> >>> dlw: The center squeeze problem is not a problem when the center is >>> always a moving target. >>> >> >> Strongly disagree. I can't even understand why anyone would say that; >> logically, the problem is worse if the center is moving, because it's >> unpredictable. >> > > dlw: Logically speaking, its a matter of how you model the dynamics of > party positioning on a kaleidoscopically shifting policy-space. If it's > imperfectly predictable then that means there's rationale to be cautious in > how one repositions towards what seems to be the center and any party that > claims to represent the center has its work cut out for itself. If there > is center squeeze this further tends to mitigate the repositioning towards > the center, which in turn leads to greater political continuity. You need > both continuity and change in politics to progress. > Also, if it's dynamic then you got to take into account more than just one > election. > > Essentially, we're approaching the problem with different loss-functions. > > dlw >
If you're approaching it from the point of view of the voters, rather than the candidates, center squeeze is always a possibility and always a problem. All the kaleidoscopes average out and you can ignore them. Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
