[EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 92, Issue 101
jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Wed Feb 22 13:33:46 PST 2012
When someone challenges your assertions, it doesn't help a whole lot to
repeat them in more detail.
2012/2/22 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:
>> 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
>>> 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.
>> 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.
> dlw: You can't just approach it from the perspective of the voters.
> They do act not unlike sheep at times and can be led astray. This is not
> unlike the political cycles observed in the time of Plato.
> Democracy->tyranny->plutocracy->Democracy->tyranny or something like that.
> To have 2 major parties at a time, so long as neither can dominate the
> other and plenty of voice is given to dissenters or minorities, provides
> some quality-control and stability to what could become a bad situation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods