On Jun 30, 2008, at 22:56 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: I see also some benefits in being bound by manifesto and
indebtedness and having related 'cliques' already before the
election.
Then you must be happy with the status quo and all the deceit,
obfuscation and corruption that dominate our
Hi, Juho
re: Yes, the new method has some properties that support this (i.e.,
replacing emotion with reason, flg). It is however not guaranteed that
feelings, parties and other differentiating factors will not find their
way in and play some role also in that method.
You are correct. We
Good Afternoon, Kevin
When reading, did you see the
[Election-Methods] Selecting Leaders From The People
post from February 4th? A major impediment to selecting our leaders
FROM the people is the role of political parties, and that led to the
discussion on this thread.
The cited post
On Jun 12, 2008, at 21:01 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
As a very good friend wrote me recently about what would happen if
members of parliament in his country were selected by such a
method ...
When people in parliament form cliques, they (would be) building
majority opinions on specific issues.
Hi,
I read your (Fred's) link and most of James'.
The selection model rings true in my opinion. But it also suits me for it
to ring true, since I prefer to imagine that the voter elects a
representative perhaps not based on detailed policy stances, and then the
elected representative does as he
At 10:55 AM 6/6/2008, Fred Gohlke wrote:
ou might be interested to know I just learned of a paper written by
Professor Jane Mansbridge of the John F. Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard University. It concerns candidate selection
and is the first work I've seen that provides an academic
Good Morning, Dave
I think I owe you an apology. Somehow, I failed to make myself clear.
What I sought to do was put some marks on a board so you (and others)
could tell me how those marks should be changed to create a sound
electoral process. I anticipated differences of opinion and
Good Morning, Juho
I haven't been idle. As a result of my discussion with you and others,
it occurred to me we should distinguish between the process of selecting
candidates and the process of electing those candidates to office. That
idea gradually took shape over the past couple of weeks,
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 3:57 PM
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Subject:Re: [Election-Methods] Partisan Politics + a method
proposal
Good Morning, Juho
I haven't been idle. As a result of my discussion with you and others
On Jun 6, 2008, at 17:53 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: I just pointed out that it does not guarantee full
proportional representation.
This point seems to center on what one considers proportional. You
appear to believe minorities should have representation in
proportion to their size.
I
On Jun 2, 2008, at 1:58 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
You apparently found aspects of my suggestion unacceptable.
I think that the Active Democracy / groups of three based method is
ok. I just pointed out that it does not guarantee full proportional
representation. There are however many kind of
On Jun 2, 2008, at 2:05 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
I am concerned about the handling of divergent opinions, but will
cross that bridge when I come to it.
I have seen plenty of different opinions on various matters on this
mailing list, so better to just try to propose methods that would
appeal
Good Afternoon, Juho
re: One more observation on the risks. Some people may feel
participation in a triad to be more challenging than dropping a ballot n
a box and therefore avoid taking part in such challenging activities
where they are expected to perform and prove their viewpoint.
Are
On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:05:14 -0400 Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Afternoon, Dave
I did a very poor job of describing my intentions when I started the
outline based on Juho's comments. It struck me it would be a good idea
to encourage a joint effort to create a sound electoral method. Several
Juho a écrit :
I agree that for most elections the deterministic methods are more
recommendable than the non-deterministic ones.
Juho
For the simple reason that deterministic methods can lead to a
reproductible result, thus reducing potential fraud...
S. Rouillon
Election-Methods
I see governor as the initial office to attend to. Simpler single person
offices can be simplified from that base.
Presidential race is even more important, but its extra complications
deserve a separate discussion after this one.
I see Condorcet and RV as the base election methods. I will
On May 27, 2008, at 18:52 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
In summary, yes, that is what the rules could look like. I'm very
flexible to what kind of set of rules each user would adopt. The
rules
also could be much simpler than including all the listed
possibilities.
My intention is just to show
On May 28, 2008, at 1:24 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:33:29 +0300 Juho wrote:
On May 27, 2008, at 18:52 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
In summary, yes, that is what the rules could look like. I'm very
flexible to what kind of set of rules each user would adopt.
The rules
also
On May 26, 2008, at 17:41 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
Because our physical needs often dictate the course of our lives,
most of those who would make the best leaders are unaware of their
political talents and are never able to exercise them.
Or may think that it is not possible or tempting for
At 02:23 PM 5/25/2008, Juho wrote:
On May 25, 2008, at 4:16 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
How about Asset Voting? It is a truly brillig method. Simple.
Invented over a hundred and twenty years ago.
I didn't include Asset Voting or related features since it includes
cabinet negotiations
On May 25, 2008, at 4:16 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
How about Asset Voting? It is a truly brillig method. Simple.
Invented over a hundred and twenty years ago.
I didn't include Asset Voting or related features since it includes
cabinet negotiations between the candidates and the
At 12:46 PM 5/22/2008, Juho wrote:
Happens to me sometimes. I write interspersed, and some space
accumulates at the bottom, and I don't see the rest of the original
message. Sorry.
When considering your interest to avoid strong party style groupings
to take control of the political life, and
At 12:46 PM 5/22/2008, Juho wrote:
Note that there are also cases where the groupings can not be
hidden. For example two white persons and one black person in a room
might easily elect a white person even if the back person said
nothing about the skin colours and all of them would behave
Good Morning, Juho
re: I do have some sympathy towards regional proportionality since in
many systems one could otherwise soon get a very capital area centric
set of representatives (who appear more often on TV and news etc.).
Regional proportionality may thus help guaranteeing that all parts
Good Afternoon, Mr. Lundell
Thank you for your lucid explanation. It, combined with the link you
provided to the J. S. Mill discussion of the topic, explained an aspect
of politics I hadn't considered. At first blush, I have no issue with
political proportionality. In fact, based on your
Good Morning, Mr. Lundell
I'm sorry my response is taking so long, but I'm working my way through
the link you gave me to John Stuart Mill's treatise regarding Mr. Thomas
Hare's proposal. He makes the case for political proportionality
admirably, although his antipathy for his country's
On May 19, 2008, at 1:46 , James Gilmour wrote:
Juho Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 10:31 PM
Single-seat districts (the usual ones) provide very tight regional
representation / proportionality.
True, if you are prepared to accept that you have regional
representation
when a majority of those
Single-seat districts (the usual ones) provide very tight regional
representation / proportionality. Political proportionality on the
other hand is very poor.
Multi-member districts provide less strict regional proportionality
but better political proportionality.
The number of seats per
Juho Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 10:31 PM
Single-seat districts (the usual ones) provide very tight regional
representation / proportionality.
True, if you are prepared to accept that you have regional representation
when a majority of those elected are elected on minority votes.
Political
At 04:29 PM 5/11/2008, Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: Only on the (country independent) technical properties of the
groups of three method.
(If there are e.g. two parties, one small and one large, the
probability of getting two small party supporters (that would elect
one of them to the next higher
Responding to this again, from a somewhat different perspective.
At 05:03 PM 5/11/2008, Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Afternoon, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
re: Mr. Gohlke, do you care to look at this?
OK. Absent a specific definition of the group of voters to which
you've assigned a ratio of 'p', 'p'
On May 11, 2008, at 23:29 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: Only on the (country independent) technical properties of the
groups of three method.
(If there are e.g. two parties, one small and one large, the
probability of getting two small party supporters (that would elect
one of them to the
Good Afternoon, Juho
re: Only on the (country independent) technical properties of the
groups of three method.
(If there are e.g. two parties, one small and one large, the
probability of getting two small party supporters (that would elect one
of them to the next higher level) in a group of
Good Afternoon, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
re: Mr. Gohlke, do you care to look at this?
OK. Absent a specific definition of the group of voters to which you've
assigned a ratio of 'p', 'p' can be taken to represent any group of
people who have an identifiable political orientation, and 'x' is the
At 10:52 PM 5/7/2008, Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Evening, Juho
re: I already commented earlier that the groups of three based
method that you have studied does not implement proportionality in
the traditional way.
You're right. It's not traditional, but it sure is
proportional. One of the
On May 8, 2008, at 5:52 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: I already commented earlier that the groups of three based
method that you have studied does not implement proportionality in
the traditional way.
You're right. It's not traditional, but it sure is proportional.
One of the unspecified
At 05:33 PM 5/8/2008, Juho wrote:
(If there are e.g. two parties, one small and one large, the
probability of getting two small party supporters (that would elect
one of them to the next higher level) in a group of three is so small
that in the next higher level the number of small party
Good Evening, Juho
re: I already commented earlier that the groups of three based method
that you have studied does not implement proportionality in the
traditional way.
You're right. It's not traditional, but it sure is proportional. One
of the unspecified conditions I intended for the
On May 4, 2008, at 19:10 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Juho
re: ... I'm more inclined to see the parties still as units that
still get their strength and mandate to rule from the citizens
themselves (and from their lack of interest to make the parties
better and control them
Good Morning, Juho
re: ... I'm more inclined to see the parties still as units that still
get their strength and mandate to rule from the citizens themselves (and
from their lack of interest to make the parties better and control them
better).
Although I (obviously) don't share your view, I
Good Morning, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
After studying your missive, it appears you make three points: Your
preference for Free Association, your advocacy of Delegable Proxy, and
your travails with Wikipedia. As to the latter, I can offer neither
help nor guidance. I will, however, comment on
On Apr 29, 2008, at 1:24 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: In US all the elected political decision makers have a mandate
that
the citizens have given them. If those politicians are not good, we
can
put some part of the blame also on the citizens.
This is probably the crux of the difference in
At 06:24 PM 4/28/2008, Fred Gohlke wrote:
This is probably the crux of the difference in our views. There can be
no mandate when, as I said in an earlier message, The only choices the
people have are those foisted on them by those who control the political
parties that have a stranglehold on our
On Apr 24, 2008, at 1:55 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: Maybe other viewpoints like the wasted money and problems of
one-dollar-one-vote may have more impact on them than the interest to
limit the size of the entertaining media event.
Aren't you and I wasting effort focusing on such matters? They
Good Afternoon, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
After considerable thought, a review of our prior exchanges, and several
readings of your message, I can find no basis for rational discourse
with you. You find me offensive and any attempt by me to alter that
view runs the risk of reinforcing it.
Fred
Good Afternoon, Juho
re: Maybe other viewpoints like the wasted money and problems of
one-dollar-one-vote may have more impact on them than the interest to
limit the size of the entertaining media event.
Aren't you and I wasting effort focusing on such matters? They are
symptoms of a deeper
Good Afternoon, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
I'm sorry I'm so slow in responding to your post. I am still, in my own
somewhat ponderous way, reflecting on your message and considering a
proper response. I will post it as quickly as I am able.
Fred
Election-Methods mailing list - see
Good Afternoon, Juho
re: I guess US is still a democracy in the sense that people can decide
otherwise if they so wish.
That is inaccurate. The only choices the people have are those foisted
on them by those who control the political parties that have a
stranglehold on our nation's political
At 03:55 PM 4/21/2008, Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Afternoon, Juho
re: I guess US is still a democracy in the sense that people can decide
otherwise if they so wish.
That is inaccurate. The only choices the people have are those foisted
on them by those who control the political parties that have a
On Apr 21, 2008, at 22:55 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: It is a pity that the needs of show business may sometimes
conflict
with the needs of a simpler and more practical (and maybe also better
working) political process.
Is it enough to merely tut-tut the show business aspect of
politics?
On Apr 19, 2008, at 15:44 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: ... it might be good to find some ways to reduce the spending
a bit
(= better chances to all candidates, less dependences in the
direction
of the donators).
The spending is welcomed by politicians and those who support them for
the precise
Good Morning, Juho
re: Good rules, voting methods etc. are there waiting to be discovered
and generally approved.
And that is what we are attempting in this discussion.
We are trying to learn from our mistakes. We have no shortage of
lessons, whether of ideologies suppressing ideologies,
Good Afternoon, Juho
re: Unfortunately humans do have tendencies e.g. to win a discussion
(and thereby make the others lose), to prove one's own viewpoints to
be right, to believe that only one theory can be the truth, to believe
that here is nothing to learn from points of view that are
And a cheerful Sunday Morning to you, Juho
re: No need to have very strong opposing arguments ...
Well, opposing arguments should be as strong as anyone can make them.
Any weakness in an idea should be attacked and broken down rationally.
Frequently, looking carefully at a weakness provides
On Apr 7, 2008, at 23:43 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: The decisions that politicians make do involve large sums of
money,
and there are nice job opportunities and also publicity etc. In these
circumstances it may be difficult to get through the buzzing crowd and
meet the original intention of
Good Morning, Juho
Your I'm sure that is not the last meaningful step in the evolution of
political systems. in response to my lament was a stunner. What a
polite way you have of countering my expression of frustration. Thanks,
I needed that.
re: ... one needs to adapt to a situation where
Good Evening, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
I prefer to exchange views with you on the Election-Methods site.
The way we select those who represent us in our government is critical
to our society, which embodies all manner of people. To create an
effective political structure I'm anxious to get
Good Morning, Juho
Very well said. I hope you're right. I hope we can improve our
political systems in less than 200 years. But, as you point out, ...
the current establishment always has clear reasons to oppose any
changes. That will make the process slow, and, possibly, painful.
You
Good Morning, David
re: I see an 'Election Commission' there. ...
You're right. 'Election Commission' was a poor choice of terms on my
part. Our experience with commissions in party politics is enough to
destroy anyone's confidence that such entities can be objective. I
could have used
to exchange views on a point taken from either:
[Election-Methods]
Selecting Leaders From The People
Monday, February 4th, 2008
or
Election-Methods]
Partisan Politics
Sunday, March 2nd, 2008
I will do my best, because both will benefit from thoughtful analysis.
Please keep in mind that I lack
Good Morning, Juho
re: 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.)
I agree. We have many options. Right now, our best bet is to
to maintain a stranglehold on
our nation's political infrastructure. I offered a brief overview of the
problem in my initial post on this topic:
[Election-Methods]
Partisan Politics
Sunday, March 2nd, 2008
Fred
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
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
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
--- Fred Gohlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, I must apologize for my tardiness, but I've
been away.
Not a problem. I think it is one of the benefits of
email and lists that everyone can keep their own
schedule.
1) if a selection is made, the only person whose
vote is unknown is the
Good Afternoon, Juho
Again, I must apologize for my tardiness, but I've been away. The trip
gave me an opportunity to consider the matter of secrecy in voting from
a point of view that hadn't occurred to me before. Before describing
it, I'd like to make an observation.
Voting secrecy is but
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:03:34 -0500 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
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 county organizations.
To me, this says
Good Evening, Juho
re: ... where the political parties break out from their simple role as
groups of similar minded people and start exercising power outside of
the role originally planned for them.
That's close.
re: The problem thus is that since the votes in practice are not secret
bad
Good Evening, Dave
re: What the parties do is more a response to the structure of
government and the responsibilities of voters.
Can you describe these two points more clearly? Do not the party
leaders direct the parties actions? In what way(s) does the structure
of government affect them?
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:04:12 -0500 Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Evening, Dave
re: What the parties do is more a response to the structure of
government and the responsibilities of voters.
Can you describe these two points more clearly? Do not the party
leaders direct the parties actions?
On Mar 14, 2008, at 5:34 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
In the U. S., our major political parties are quasi-official entities
that control the selection of candidates for public office. They
raise
the immense amounts of money needed to get their candidates elected by
selling the votes of their
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:42:17 +0200 Juho wrote:
On Mar 14, 2008, at 5:34 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
In the U. S., our major political parties are quasi-official entities
that control the selection of candidates for public office. They
raise
the immense amounts of money needed to get their
On Mar 13, 2008, at 1:57 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
As to any specific group, one may question the wisdom of their
selection. To doubt the wisdom of all the groups is to doubt the
wisdom
of humanity.
I think humans are wise but not flawless. They tend to need some
support, e.g. in the form of
On Mar 13, 2008, at 2:00 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
However, as discussed before, as the levels advance, those who advance
can be expected to be marked, more and more, as people who want to
advance.
That sort of favours electing hard core career seeking politicians.
Is the intention to elect
Good Afternoon, Puho
I apologize for the tardiness of my response. I've been away and had a
considerable amount of work to dig through when I returned.
re: I don't trust that groups of three would always make good decisions
even if given time. (I see you expressed a slightly different view
Good Evening, Juho
re: I may feel that in the long chained process some of the benefits
may be lost ...
In my view the long chained process or sequential nature of the group
assignments add strength to the process. We know many people do not
participate in the present system and we can
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
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
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
Good Afternoon, Juho
re: I tend to think that often the understanding is also the most
crucial step. I mean that after such understanding and model is found
that it covers all aspects and players and can be accepted by all, then
people tend to think that actually it is obvious and it is
On Mar 8, 2008, at 22:35 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: Small groups may also have problems like strong individuals
simply
running over the less aggressive and less confident ones.
This will surely happen at the lower levels because humans are
characterized by varying degrees of aggressiveness.
On Mar 7, 2008, at 16:40 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Juho
re: ... not having parties or other groupings may also cause problems
to the voters since they have hard time finding out what each
individual
candidate stands for.
The purpose of Active Democracy is to guarantee that
On Mar 4, 2008, at 23:56 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Afternoon, Dave
If I gave you the impression I was ... demanding that it (the party
system) release control, I erred. I make no such demand, nor do I
believe one to be practical.
Strong party structure has its problems. Having no parties
Good Afternoon, Juho
(I just noticed that I have another message from you, in another area.
I will copy it and respond as quickly as I can, probably tomorrow. I'm
inexpert at navigating this site, but learning. flg)
In the message I'm responding to, you raise several important issues.
On Mar 7, 2008, at 0:03 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Afternoon, Juho
(I just noticed that I have another message from you, in another area.
I will copy it and respond as quickly as I can, probably tomorrow.
I'm
inexpert at navigating this site, but learning. flg)
In the message I'm
Hi,
Fred Gohlke wrote:
This site focuses on methods of conducting elections, but most posts
address only a single aspect of that topic; the way votes are counted.
Is not the object for which votes are cast a matter of even greater
concern? When our public officials are not representative
On Mar 2, 2008, at 17:45 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
SEEKING IMPROVEMENT
We do not need partisanship, which sets one person against
another; we need independent representatives who will think for
themselves and reach intelligent decisions on matters of public
concern.
In other words, to
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 10:45:42 -0500 Fred Gohlke wrote:
This site focuses on methods of conducting elections, but most posts
address only a single aspect of that topic; the way votes are counted.
Is not the object for which votes are cast a matter of even greater
concern? When our public
91 matches
Mail list logo
