Relevance of Consistency

[Blake Cretney]

> If there's some way in which the outcome in the districts
> can be called the people's choice, representative of what they want,
> then how can we say that about the systemwide result?

If I say that Bill Smith chooses candidate X, we all know what that
means.  But what do I mean when I say Northern California chooses X?  Do
I mean that Northern California has wills and desires in the same sense
that Bill Smith does?  Of course not.  I can ascribe decisions to
Northern California only metaphorically.  Probably what I mean is that
Northern Californians generally prefer X, or that their constitution
designates X as the winner, or something like that. 

I think you're taking the choice of a district quite literally, as if
there were some kind of entity called the district with a capacity to
choose in the same way that Bill Smith has a capacity to choose.  This
allows you to take a district and mentally replace it with a single
voter, the group.  So, when two groups say A, but their combination says
B, its kind of like B winning despite the unanimous choice of A.  But
its just a trick of the language. 

---
Blake Cretney (http://condorcet.org)


----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em