Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RangeVoting] Re: PR sucks

Expand Messages
  • Juho
    On May 1, 2007, at 6:19 , brokenladdercalendar wrote:--- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, raphfrk wrote: That s not default Range, which
    Message 1 of 45 , Apr 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      On May 1, 2007, at 6:19 , brokenladdercalendar wrote:

      > --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "raphfrk" <raphfrk@...> wrote:
      >> That's not default Range, which is single winner. In any case, there
      >> seems little point in going multiwinner if you aren't going to go PR.
      >
      > No one has yet told me what PR even is yet. I have asked repeatedly.
      > Again I ask, which of these sets of two candidates gives us PR,
      > considering they all leave us in the exact same utility center.
      >
      > -1, +1
      > -5, +5
      > -13, +13
      >
      >> Would you support that as a system for electing the entire
      >> legislature
      >> in one go ? That would most likely give all the seats to the
      >> majority
      >> (party if they exist).
      >
      > Seats don't go to parties, they go to candidates.

      I have tried to give a (partial) description to PR.

      With parties the (traditional?) definition sounds quite straight
      forward to me. Proportional representation means maybe electing
      candidates from each party in proportion to the number of voters hey
      got. This can be expanded to a party-less set-up. One could elect
      candidates that are as close to the opinions of each voter, while
      maintaining the proportionality by electing more candidates (and
      thereby making also the distances from the voters to their
      representatives shorter in those areas). Not an exact definition but
      quite clear to me. I can see that there could be definitions that
      would not include the "closeness" principle (e.g. only a
      representative average opinion could be required), but that seems to
      me to be a natural extension/continuation from the traditional party
      based definition.

      Juho




      ___________________________________________________________
      Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" � The Wall Street Journal
      http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
    • raphfrk
      ... I thought that the filibuster rule also required that the person stand unassisted ? To lock up the Senate required some effort on the part of the Senator.
      Message 45 of 45 , May 5 1:59 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd@...> wrote:

        > In my suggestion with the finite vote totals, it is more equal and
        > >allows a more graduated response (arguably the filibuster rule
        > >discriminates against those who would have difficulty standing for
        > >long periods ... would a Senator who was in a wheelchair not be able
        > >to filibuster ?).
        >
        > No. "Standing" to speak is actually figurative. Someone who cannot
        > stand can still speak; there are other means of indicating when one
        > has begun and one has ended.....
        >

        I thought that the filibuster rule also required that the person stand
        unassisted ? To lock up the Senate required some effort on the part
        of the Senator. If the Senator leaned on something, he lost control
        of the floor (or is that just a myth)?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.