When someone challenges your assertions, it doesn't help a whole lot to repeat them in more detail.
Jameson 2012/2/22 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Jameson Quinn <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> 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. >> > > dlw: You can't just approach it from the perspective of the voters. > They do act not unlike sheep at times and can be led astray. This is not > unlike the political cycles observed in the time of Plato. > Democracy->tyranny->plutocracy->Democracy->tyranny or something like that. > To have 2 major parties at a time, so long as neither can dominate the > other and plenty of voice is given to dissenters or minorities, provides > some quality-control and stability to what could become a bad situation. > dlw > >> Jameson >> > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
