Dear all, 86 emails in this discussion is quite a lot to read to catch up on the discussion on this topic. Maybe a summary could be in place, in case you have agreed upon something, or someone has come up with some great idea. Thx.
Best regards Peter Zborník 2012/8/2 Michael Allan <[email protected]> > > ... 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 >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
