[EM] Quebec election - references...

[Elisabeth Varin]

Personnaly, at first glance,
this clear majority definition seems acceptable to me.

Was it considered or proposed to the Ontario sssembly?
Did they vote on it?

>From: Howard Swerdfeger <electorama.com at howard.swerdfeger.com>
>Reply-To: election-methods at electorama.com
>To: Elisabeth Varin <stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca>
>CC: election-methods at electorama.com
>Subject: Re: [EM] Quebec election - references...
>Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:54:03 -0400
>
>
>   > This site is slightly biased toward the PLQ, however you can download
> > a detailed prediction, seat by seat under the projection file.
> >
> > http://democraticspace.com/blog/quebec2007/
> > http://democraticspace.com/blog/category/canadian-politics/quebec2007/
> >
> > I think that the result will be PQ minoritarian, but with the PLQ 
>receiving
> > more votes than PQ. PLQ delayed PR application despite its own promises
> > and electoral program.
>
>if you are interested in the Quebec election, you might be interested in
>this.
>
>http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2007-March/019859.html
>
>The Thread is titled "divided house problem of close vote (50%+1)"
>
>I started thinking about this problem when I heard lots of people
>complaining that the double super majority required in the Ontario and
>BC referendums (60% popular vote + 60% of the ridings) on electoral
>reform were undemocratic. While I agree with them I couldn't help
>thinking that the solution they proposed (50%+1) was also undemocratic,
>and given to random chance. Thinking back to 1995 the Quebec referendum
>was not so much a victory for the "No" in my opinion as it was a
>"Tie".
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum
>and at the risk of (mis)quoting Rex Murphy
>"Had it been a little more rainy in Montreal, we might have had a
>different result."
>
>Then you look at other factors that largely effect the outcome.
>Like
>   * When you ask the question.
>Leaders like Charest, Dion, Harper, Chrétien: are constantly watching
>the polls, to try and think when they can get the result that favours
>them the most.
>Cherest, tried to take advantage of the fact that Boisclair is not at
>all liked., by calling the election. He obviously failed to account for
>the fact that most people hate him also.
>
>So, In my opinion 50% +1 or -1 is far to easy for the people in power to
>influence and far to vulnerable to random noise. But I also think that
>Super majority criteria are anti democratic as well. They can lead to
>minority rule.
>
>So I came up with this basic idea, based on a simple neuron model by
>asking the question multiple times with a super majority threshold. your
>   score is
>Score = 'Old Score' + 'Yes%' - 50%
>with criteria to automatically re-ask the question, if the result is close.
>
>check out the thread, or post questions if you are at all interested.
>
>any way in conclusion
>"Vive le Québec! Vive le Canada Français!"
>
>
>
>----
>election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info