Good Morning, Juho
re: But citizens may also feel that some of the elected representatives
got through without any wide support, just based on their capability to
explain their way through and having good luck in getting appropriate
competitors/supporters when the election tree was
Hi, everyone. I was just sent a note letting me know my last message was in an
unreadable format (a copy of it here:
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20080308/a1502ffe/attachment.html),
so I thought I'd resend it using Thunderbird instead of the
On Mar 9, 2008, at 16:55 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
As the levels advance, the participants
need more time to evaluate those they are grouped with.
I don't trust that groups of three would always make good decisions
even if given time.
I really don't think getting appropriate
The explanation was clear enough for me.
I have one concern - the behaviour of the counting method with
clones. Let's multiply one of the candidates (A = A1 and A2). Then
we would have:
1: A1=10 A2=10 B=2 C=1 D=0
1: A1=10 A2=10 C=7 B=6 D=0
1: B=10 C=6 A1=5 A2=5 D=0
3: C=10 D=5 A1=1 A2=1 B=0
Good Evening, Juho
re: Some rules always exist.
Of course. There is no question but that rules are an important part of
the process. That is not the point. The point is that, in terms of
behaviour in the Active Democracy groups, harnessing human nature is
more effective at governing
On Mar 10, 2008, at 1:59 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: The point is just that although I assume that the 'willing'
people
might be more responsible and as efficient leaders as the 'seeking'
ones
also the seeking ones may in some cases work quite well.)
I suspect our views on this are
