Good Afternoon, David
re: How would you do better?
Well, for starters, I'd ponder ways to empower the electorate by
harnessing our nature and de-emphasizing partisanship. I'm sure there
are many ways that can be done. You'll find an outline of one
possibility at
[Election-Methods]
Good Afternoon, Juho
Is it possible you have not read my February 4th post, Selecting
Leaders From the People? It describes an election method I call Active
Democracy. If not, that may explain some of the confusion in our
discussion. Throughout our exchange, I've been under the impression
Steve Eppley wrote:
IRV might cause polarization even worse than what we already have, since
the effective plurality rule campaign strategy of shifting toward the
centrist swing voters after being nominated--which reduces polarization
somewhat--would risk, under IRV, the late entry of an
At 08:03 PM 3/18/2008, Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Evening, Dave
re: In New York, at least, the two major parties each do such as
appoint half the members of the Boards of Elections. and also in regard
to the related comments about party leadership, party activities,
party business, state party, and
--- Fred Gohlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope you'll read (or re-read) the February 4th
post.
I already earlier tried to summarize my viewpoint when
I said As you can see my concerns and possible
improvements that I'd like to study are mainly in the
areas of privacy of the votes and in
At 05:09 PM 3/23/2008, Juho Laatu wrote:
The method now presents one very clean viewpoint. The
method introduces some clear benefits but also some
problems. I'd maybe try to find a method that would
keep most of the benefits and eliminate most of the
problems. (There could be many paths forward.)
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:35:13 -0400 Warren Smith wrote:
The YN model - a simple voting model in which range voting behaves
optimally while many competing voting systems (including Condorcet)
can behave pessimally:
http://rangevoting.org/PuzzAggreg.html
When I
