[EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 92, Issue 101

Jameson Quinn jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Wed Feb 22 13:16:05 PST 2012

2012/2/22 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>

>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>
>> To: David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>> Cc: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:16:57 -0600
>> Subject: Re: [EM] Kevin V. and Rich F.
>>> dlw: The center squeeze problem is not a problem when the center is
>>> always a moving target.
>> Strongly disagree. I can't even understand why anyone would say that;
>> logically, the problem is worse if the center is moving, because it's
>> unpredictable.
> dlw: Logically speaking, its a matter of how you model the dynamics of
> party positioning on a kaleidoscopically shifting policy-space.  If it's
> imperfectly predictable then that means there's rationale to be cautious in
> how one repositions towards what seems to be the center and any party that
> claims to represent the center has its work cut out for itself.  If there
> is center squeeze this further tends to mitigate the repositioning towards
> the center, which in turn leads to greater political continuity.  You need
> both continuity and change in politics to progress.
> Also, if it's dynamic then you got to take into account more than just one
> election.
> Essentially, we're approaching the problem with different loss-functions.
> dlw

If you're approaching it from the point of view of the voters, rather than
the candidates, center squeeze is always a possibility and always a
problem. All the kaleidoscopes average out and you can ignore them.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120222/d7591988/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list