> ... Are P-Q-R-S-T separate groups (parties?), each with members > making nominations? ...
They are primary processes, i.e. for selecting candidates prior to the official election. So the unreformed ones are party primaries, yes. > ... When you say "at least two are reformed processes, are you > speaking of groups with open nominations? ... One could be the process you and Juho were mooting, and another could feature open nominations, yes. > ... Are the percentages the percent of the groups' membership or of > the entire electorate? Of the entire electorate. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Fred Gohlke said: > Good Afternoon, Michael > > In response to your July 29th post on a different thread: > > re: "I guess we can safely assume that reforms (whatever they > are) will not begin with the official electoral process. > It is too difficult to change and too easy to circumvent. > What matters is the selection of candidates, namely the > primary electoral process. Right?" > > Yes, we are discussing a possible method of selecting candidates. We > arrived at this particular idea by assuming that parties still operate > in more or less the same way they do today, but that everyone has the > right to nominate candidates for public office - party members within > parties and unrepresented people (in the 'party' sense) as a separate group. > > > re: "Consider a point in the future at which there are five main > primary processes in operation at varying levels of turnout, > with at least two being reformed processes (your choice > which)." > > Process Turnout > ------- ------- > P 20 % > Q 15 (at least two are > R 5 reformed processes) > S 2 > T 1 > > Is this expectation more-or-less reasonable? Anyone? > > Please help me with this one. Are P-Q-R-S-T separate groups (parties?), > each with members making nominations? When you say "at least two are > reformed processes, are you speaking of groups with open nominations? > Are the percentages the percent of the groups' membership or of the > entire electorate? > > > re: "When you speak (Fred) of controlling the time at which > 'candidates are announced', do you mean only for the process > that you and Juho are mooting, say one of P-T? Or all > processes P-T? Your purpose would seem to require control > of all the major primaries." > > The concept we were examining imagined a single nominating process in > which partisans and non-partisans nominate candidates for public office. > After being nominated, the nominees for each party (and the > non-partisan nominees as a group) decide which of the nominees are the > best advocates of the party's point of view. Then, the remaining > partisan/non-partisan nominees examine each other to decide which of > their number will be the candidates for public office. Then the people > vote for their choice of the candidates. The question of how many > candidates there would be for each office was not discussed, and, > barring further discussion, would be left to those who implement the > process. > > Fred ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
