(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] fluffymormegil.livejournal.com at 11:35pm on 09/05/2005
And, in practice, most people vote for a party most of the time, even if the ballot paper preserves the fond delusion that they're voting for a person.
[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] hoiho.livejournal.com at 11:39pm on 09/05/2005
Becasue, at the monent, you have no other choice. However, in last 2 generals (before this one) I voted for one Tam Dalyell, Bart. I did not vote for him becasue he was labour, but becasue he was Tam, and I trusted him. I'd like to be able to do that more often.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] fluffymormegil.livejournal.com at 11:46pm on 09/05/2005
I don't see that multimember constituencies do that much better, and I don't regard the Condorcet problem as a terribly attractive thing either.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] hoiho.livejournal.com at 11:55pm on 09/05/2005
Why not? Say we have 6 seats going. I can choose 3 because I trust the the candidates; then I can allocate my other votes on a party basis -- if I so choose. But I'm not compeled, as I am at the moment, to chose one of N. The value of rejection in an electoral system should not be underestimated.
[link] [parent] [reply]
emperor: (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] emperor at 08:17am on 10/05/2005
Have a RON list? :-)
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] meirion.livejournal.com at 03:44am on 10/05/2005
i am coming to see condorcet cycles not as a bug, but as a feature.

-m-
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] yrieithydd.livejournal.com at 06:57am on 10/05/2005
What are condorcet cycles?
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] senji.livejournal.com at 08:40am on 10/05/2005
There is no Condorcet winner if A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A. This is called a voting cycle. (It is also called a voting paradox because the collective ranking can be circular even if each voter has non-circular preferences.)
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] ci5rod.livejournal.com at 01:23am on 10/05/2005
Actually no, I'm convinced that most people vote against a party rather than for one. Tactical voting is probably the most invidious effect of First Past The Post, because where there are more than two contenders in the vote the whole business becomes one of affecting the voters' perception of who might win. "Only I can beat the Wombat Party candidate" is (with appropriate substitutions) a very common rallying cry, and it doesn't matter if it's untrue; if enough voters believe that it is true, then it becomes true.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] atreic.livejournal.com at 07:37am on 10/05/2005
Of course, this could be countered by actually letting people vote against a party. Say "you can either have a yes vote or a no vote" and add up the number of yeses and subtract the number of Nos. It's a bit depressing to think we have a country that would vote against rather than for, but as it happens anyway, this would take away the squew of "guessing who the second candidate will be"
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] fluffymormegil.livejournal.com at 09:31am on 10/05/2005
In the last election, every constituency in the country had at least one candidate worth voting against.
[link] [parent] [reply]

October

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1
 
 2
 
 3
 
 4
 
5
 
 6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
12
 
 13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
19
 
 20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
1
26
 
 27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
 
 31