[EM] Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis?
David L Wetzell
wetzelld at gmail.com
Wed Feb 22 14:52:01 PST 2012
We could both be right, one in the short-run and the other in the
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:
> 2012/2/22 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>> As you may know, at the beginning of this century, French and English
>> economics graduate students challenged the dominance of uber-mathematically
>> analytical approaches to Economics in what became the Post-Autistic
>> Economics movement. <http://www.paecon.net/HistoryPAE.htm>A lot of
>> their critiques apply similarly to rational choice models in political
>> science and might be worth pondering for electoral analytics.
>> I myself consider my diffidence to jockeying for what's the best
>> single-winner alternative to FPTP as blissfully ignoring how joe average
>> voter(or habitual non-voter) is a creature of habit and won't respond to
>> being given umpteen more choices in the way policy-wonkish electoral
>> analysts would.This sort of behavioralist approach to voters is not unlike
>> as shown by neurologists looking into the political brain<http://www.thepoliticalbrain.com/videos.php>.
> I too consider my advocacy of SODA, and to a lesser extent MJ, as being
> strongly informed by a humanistic/cognitive view. It seems quite possible
> that one of us is wrong.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods