At 04:22 PM 9/25/2007, Juho wrote:
>One more approach would be to give the parties some "veto votes" that
>they can use as they wish during the period between elections. If
>some party in on the losing side in some vote by 5% margin it could
>still veto and use 5 of its veto votes to do that (maybe
On Sep 24, 2007, at 23:03 , Howard Swerdfeger wrote:
>> One alternative approach would be to require higher percentage of
>> votes
>> in some cases, e.g. after decisions have been made with lower
>> percentages for few times. In this case 30%+30% would not be
>> enough any
>> more in some case
Howard Swerdfeger wrote:
> |-|--||-|
> | YEAR | PropRep | PropPower | System |
> |-|--||-|
> | 1993 | 18.3| 54.0 | FPTP |
> | 1996 | 6.0| 10.2 | MMP |
> | 1999 | 4.7| 12.2
Juho wrote:
> Some random observations on the theme.
>
> "Seats != power" seems to assume that there is a hard party discipline
> (=all party representatives will/must vote as told by the party). Or
> alternatively representatives could have different weights (different
> number of votes each
At 11:22 AM 9/21/2007, Howard Swerdfeger wrote:
>The drive behind thes moves it usually that the old system fails to
>translate votes into seats "fairly". (Votes != Seats)
If we want to understand fair proportional representation, we must
look back to the principle of representation itself, and t
Some random observations on the theme.
"Seats != power" seems to assume that there is a hard party
discipline (=all party representatives will/must vote as told by the
party). Or alternatively representatives could have different weights
(different number of votes each).
You skipped the "
I know that this list is primarily single winner elections but I thought
given the low volume as of late a slight change of topic would be welcome.
with that, I was wondering about multi winner elections. specifically
the parliamentary kind typical of most former British colonies.
Do to the
