On Sep 5, 2008, at 2:26 , Raph Frank wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The simplest (not necessarily optimal) approach to implement multiple
dimensions is one where you simply elect representatives starting
from the
ones with strongest support (e.g. best
afterwards even if we would elect the
representatives by some random selection method.
Juho
From: Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Election Methods Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] No geographical districts
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 00:13:34 +0300
Geographical proportionality is one
On 9/11/08, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why weakest? What is the weakest of each party's strongest candidates?
It means find the candidate in each party with the highest vote.
These are the party's stongest candidates.
You then assign the seat to the weakest of them (but only if the party
is
On 9/5/08, Stéphane Rouillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/get_involved/submission/R/ROUILLON-65
You are welcome to comment. At least I hope you have fun reading it if you
find the time.
Your implementation of IRV is non-standard (though I agree with the
Raph Frank wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Stéphane Rouillon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Juho,
using age, gender or other virtual dimension to build virtual districts
replaces geographic antagonism by generation antagonism.
The idea is to get equivalent sample that are not opposed by
On 9/4/08, Stéphane Rouillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not self-chosen districts ?
Because then the last half of voters would be able to pick
between district already composed of majoritarians ideologies.
Again the least organized and the smallest group would finish splitted
between
Stéphane Rouillon Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:03 AM
STV-PR suffers from three principal problems that are exacerbated when
trying to push the proportionality limit.
Why would you want to try to push the proportionality limit? The law of
diminishing returns applies to
.
Distance is less and less relevant. We should adapt our political structures
to this reality.
Thanks for taking the time to read,
Stéphane.
From: James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] No geographical districts
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008
Good Afternoon, Stephane Rouillon
I, for one, find your suggestion original and elegant.
You have described a simple way of dividing the people into districts,
independent not only of their geographic location but of their
ideological predispositions, as well. Candidates who seek to
Geographical proportionality is one specific dimension. Most other
dimensions could be called political dimensions. Also groupings that
do not live in any specific compact area could be called political
groupings. In principle they could form a party and that way get a
proportional number
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The simplest (not necessarily optimal) approach to implement multiple
dimensions is one where you simply elect representatives starting from the
ones with strongest support (e.g. best candidate of the largest party in the
largest
prefer equivalent samples of the entire electorate (phone numbers or hash
tables using names could work too, but it has some slight discrepancies and
problems...)
From: Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Election Methods Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] No geographical districts
Date
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Stéphane Rouillon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Juho,
using age, gender or other virtual dimension to build virtual districts
replaces geographic antagonism by generation antagonism.
The idea is to get equivalent sample that are not opposed by intrinsec
: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] No geographical districts
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 02:25:24 +0100
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Stéphane Rouillon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Juho,
using age, gender or other virtual dimension to build virtual districts
replaces geographic
Hello electorama fans,
regarding that last comment, I invite those interested in non-geographical
district
to consider astrological district. The idea is to obtain equivalent samples
of the electorate
in term of any distribution (age, geography, profession, language,
religion,...) like
poll
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] (on 3 September
2008 22:01:24 +), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(=?iso-8859-1?B?U3TpcGhhbmUgUm91aWxsb24=?=) wrote:
Hello electorama fans,
regarding that last comment, I invite those interested in non-geographical
district to consider astrological district.
How about
of giving money
to a politician to tell him how to vote... That would still be a police job.
From: Allen Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] No geographical districts
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 18:51:28 -0400
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] (on 3
On Sep 3, 2008, at 10:02 PM, Stéphane Rouillon wrote:
STV-PR suffers from three principal problems that are exacerbated
when trying to push the proportionality limit. They are all caused
by the large number of candidates:
1) A pre-selection occurs within each party, in order for the star
18 matches
Mail list logo
