Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:50 AM
I was looking at their BC-STV proposal. What is the
difference from normal PR-STV (or is calling it BC-STV just a
'marketing ploy' :) )?
Depends what you mean by normal. There are at least six different sets of
rules for STV-PR now
On 9/10/08, James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:50 AM
I was looking at their BC-STV proposal. What is the
difference from normal PR-STV (or is calling it BC-STV just a
'marketing ploy' :) )?
Depends what you mean by normal. There
Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:49 AM
Depends what you mean by normal. There are at least six different
sets of rules for STV-PR now in use for public elections around the
world.
Fair enough. So they are just giving an official name to one
of them then?
I would
Aaron makes a fundamental point about sortition...it may be democratic
(the ancient Greeks thought it was more democratic than elections), but it
is not what we call a republican form of representation, which involves
people evaluating and choosing individuals (or parties) through election
and
James Gilmour wrote:
Raph Frank Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:35 PM
Also, what is optimal for Should we use subsidiarity to make
decisions?.
I don't think this question can be answered as you have asked it.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask Do we want our
decision-making
Michael Allan wrote:
What about an alternative electoral system, in parallel? If voters
really want to see change - if they really want to choose the 'who'
and the 'what' - a parallel system would give them an opportunity to
vote with their feet. If nothing else, they might be curious to learn
On 9/10/08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you take the parallel system strategy to its extreme, you'd get a
parallel organization where (as an example), a group elects a double
mayor and support him over the real mayor, essentially building a state
inside the state. I
On 9/10/08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If duplicate votes don't count, then there'll be a natural incentive to
pick friends instead of central party figures. All campaigning would do
would be to give whichever candidate's being promoted a lot of votes, which
is no better
On 9/10/08, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, I would rather a friend got it than someone famous who I
didn't know.
The exception might be someone who did well in the previous term in
office. Current legislators would count as 'famous' and in a good
way.
Election-Methods
Raph Frank wrote:
The US (and many other countries') founders had to base their new
structure on something. Ideas are not as irrelevant as you seem to
make out.
PR-STV wouldn't have been implemented if nobody bothered to suggest it.
True. I like how Max Weber qualifies it:
Not ideas,
Jobst,
Here's another direction to take the idea of D2MAC:
Voters rate options as 1, 2, or 3 according to whether they are good, better, or
best, respectively.
All other candidates are rated at zero by default.
Six ballots B1, B2, ... B6, are drawn at random.
If there is an option that is
I don't think I expressed my point clearly enough: I consider that making
the public the active agents in their own governance is a very major
benefit of popular government. THE benefit, in fact. Increasing the
percentage of majority policy preferences enacted, in such a way as to
make the people
--- On Wed, 9/10/08, Terry Bouricius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Terry Bouricius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 10:20 AM
Aaron makes a fundamental point about
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Michael Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Call this the formal defense of the modern state. It claims that
the constitutional structures are not at fault. The faults or
failings in democracy are located outside of state institutions. But
whether we argue that
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Aaron Armitage
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think I expressed my point clearly enough: I consider that making
the public the active agents in their own governance is a very major
benefit of popular government. THE benefit, in fact.
However, most of the
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A two House solution seems to help with that though, you still need to
know what is happening in order to pick the elected house.
Also, it could work like the Irish Seanad and have persuasive power only.
For example, the
--- On Wed, 9/10/08, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] sortition/random legislature Was: Re: language/framing
quibble
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 6:30 PM
On Wed,
17 matches
Mail list logo
