Re: [RangeVoting] Re: PR sucks
- On May 1, 2007, at 6:19 , brokenladdercalendar wrote:
> --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "raphfrk" <raphfrk@...> wrote:I have tried to give a (partial) description to PR.
>> 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
>> in one go ? That would most likely give all the seats to the
>> (party if they exist).
> Seats don't go to parties, they go to candidates.
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
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" � The Wall Street Journal
- --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd@...> wrote:
> In my suggestion with the finite vote totals, it is more equal andI thought that the filibuster rule also required that the person stand
> >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.....
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)?