David, Which post are you commenting on?
David L Wetzell said: > If you're going to pit two election rules against each other by using them > both and then have voters decide between the cases when they differ then > you're going to have sample > selection problems. For it's potentially more work, there might be a > learning curve for many voters with some rules, which would muddy the > evidence, and I find it hard for politicians to agree to such an experiment > or not tamper the evidence by additional targeted campaigning if it did go > into a face-off. > Or what if there's been significant amounts of voter error in a close > election(in one of the two) or even possibly selective tampering as a > potential source of differing outcomes? C > > It sounds like a nice experiment, but it'd have a terrible marketing > problem, apart from perhaps the internal elections of modestly-sized third > parties committed to experimenting with different elections. > > I am fascinated with the scope for increased experimentation in the USA if > the GOP civil war weakens the center-right-ish party so that it'd be in > their interest to push for a less winner-take-all electoral system. But I > think it's fair to focus on electoral reforms that won't end the tendency > to 2-party domination, but rather end the tendency to single-party > domination that currently exists in the US's political system and that > makes it so hard for our leaders to get anything done... > > dlw ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
