We could both be right, one in the short-run and the other in the long-run...
dlw On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Jameson Quinn <[email protected]>wrote: > > > 2012/2/22 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > >> As you may know, at the beginning of this century, French and English >> economics graduate students challenged the dominance of uber-mathematically >> analytical approaches to Economics in what became the Post-Autistic >> Economics movement. <http://www.paecon.net/HistoryPAE.htm>A lot of >> their critiques apply similarly to rational choice models in political >> science and might be worth pondering for electoral analytics. >> >> I myself consider my diffidence to jockeying for what's the best >> single-winner alternative to FPTP as blissfully ignoring how joe average >> voter(or habitual non-voter) is a creature of habit and won't respond to >> being given umpteen more choices in the way policy-wonkish electoral >> analysts would.This sort of behavioralist approach to voters is not unlike >> as shown by neurologists looking into the political >> brain<http://www.thepoliticalbrain.com/videos.php>. >> >> > > I too consider my advocacy of SODA, and to a lesser extent MJ, as being > strongly informed by a humanistic/cognitive view. It seems quite possible > that one of us is wrong. > > Jameson > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
