David L Wetzell wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:20 PM, David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com
mailto:wetze...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a bunch of responses
dlw: SL may be more proportional than LR Hare, but since I'm advocating
for the use of a mix of single-winner and multi-winner
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_el...@lavabit.com
wrote:
David L Wetzell wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:20 PM, David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.commailto:
wetze...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a bunch of responses
dlw: SL may be more proportional than LR Hare,
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:20 PM, David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a bunch of responses
dlw: SL may be more proportional than LR Hare, but since I'm advocating for
the use of a mix of single-winner and multi-winner election rules, I have
no problems with the former being biased
Here's a bunch of responses
dlw:My approach replaces STV with LR Hare, I guess I don't really care
whether rankings get used or not, but I do like having fewer seats with PR
with a Hare Quota, so we can avoid those arbitrary percentage
restrictions. It lets third parties decide who's the
