[EM] Fwd: The list might like this...
An interesting article from DLW on modelling two-party voting as a battle between two networks. (The comments are depressingly stupid, though.) -- Forwarded message -- From: David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com Date: 2013/7/22 Subject: The list might like this... To: Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.com http://phys.org/news/2013-04-election-strongly-voter-network-key.html Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Fwd: The list might like this...
On 07/22/2013 07:20 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: An interesting article from DLW on modelling two-party voting as a battle between two networks. (The comments are depressingly stupid, though.) Maybe that could be used to argue in favor of Michael Allan's party that will dissolve itself. The general line would go to the effect of hey, connected nodes: you're what the party needs to succeed. So shouldn't you get some influence too? You can by using delegative structures, which is what we'd like to use. Regarding the comments, I get the impression that the commenters know that something is wrong. But they don't know *why* something is rotten with the state of politics, so they try to find a simple explanation on their own. And the simplest explanations (in the sense of being easy to imagine) are conspiracy or that all blame can be placed on the current party in power. I know that line of reasoning is potentially logically rude (in Suber's sense), so I'll be really careful with it. Still, it fits with the impression I get. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Fwd: The list might like this...
On 07/22/2013 07:20 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: An interesting article from DLW on modelling two-party voting as a battle between two networks. (The comments are depressingly stupid, though.) Maybe that could be used to argue in favor of Michael Allan's party that will dissolve itself. The general line would go to the effect of hey, connected nodes: you're what the party needs to succeed. So shouldn't you get some influence too? You can by using delegative structures, which is what we'd like to use. Regarding the comments, I get the impression that the commenters know that something is wrong. But they don't know *why* something is rotten with the state of politics, so they try to find a simple explanation. And the simplest explanations (in the sense of being easy to imagine) are conspiracy or that all blame can be placed on the current party in power. I know that line of reasoning is potentially logically rude (in Suber's sense), so I'll be really careful with it. Still, it fits with the impression I get. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
