Comments for Ahwa Talk

Comment on Slovenia rejects new family law by Lukas Leuzinger

Lukas Leuzinger — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:51:01 +0000

Well, if the law was that important, I’m sure that more people would have bothered to take the few steps to the next polling station…

The problem with thresholds is that they often result in extremely biased results. In the case of the referendum in Slovenia, had there been a threshold, the government would probably have advised people not to go voting at all (or take other, possibly nastier measures to keep turnout low). Exactly this game takes place regularly in Italy, where the losing side often gets 90 percent of the votes and more. This gets extremely frustrating for voters who make their way to the polling station but whose vote doesn’t count. And how democratic is it, in a democracy, to urge people not to use their political rights? Needless to say, the strategy can also backfire, leading to laws being approved that a majority reject (or vice versa).

Furthermore, if there should be a threshold for referendums, why shouldn’t there be one for elections as well? Or isn’t it possible that “a small, driven group of individuals” force their will on the rest of the population in an election? The argument is exactly the same, since there is no fundamental difference between elections and referendums.

Comment on Direct Democracy and Thresholds by Slovenia rejects new family law « Ahwa Talk

Slovenia rejects new family law « Ahwa Talk — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:07:35 +0000

[...] discussed several times my opposition to direct democracy without turnout thresholds. They allow a small, driven group of [...]

Comment on Egypt’s election law favors small parties, fractured parliament by Jack

Jack — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 02:44:09 +0000

Mostafa, I have a spreadsheet that allocates seats at the district level via largest remainder. Did you ever find what you need?

Comment on Institutions are still important, even in America by William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D. — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:06:45 +0000

Hi David!
You are right. Prez doesn’t set pay for Cong. Maybe Perry didn’t know that. But they can’t just set their own pay. US Const – Art 1, sec 6: “compensation … to be ascertained by law” Ie, they need signature of prez (cf. 27th Amnd)

Hope you write something about why attidues towards Internet voting show “surprisingly little skepticism.” If you do, pls let me know.
Thanks,
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Twitter: wjkno1
[email protected]

Comment on Egypt’s election law favors small parties, fractured parliament by Mostafa

Mostafa — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:57:03 +0000

Hey – your blog is great and extremely helpful at helping wrap my head around some of Egypt’s electoral procedures (although am not quite there yet)…

Been adding up some of the party/list parliamentary votes from round 1 based on the leaked/leaking results… However, any idea how to easily implement a highest remainder distribution for the seats with excel logic so as to be automated? Would appreciate your thoughts, here is the ilnk: http://goo.gl/e6vIt

Tab 3 “@melhoshy” is probably the most useful for that purpose.. Thanks!

Comment on Compulsory voting in Egypt by Compulsory voting in Egypt « Democracy and Society

Compulsory voting in Egypt « Democracy and Society — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:21:27 +0000

[...] posted at Ahwa Talk. [...]

Comment on The Implications of Egypt’s Proposed Electoral System (Long) by Egypt’s electoral system « Democracy and Society

Egypt’s electoral system « Democracy and Society — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:19:18 +0000

[...] are some good reasons people have said this. Under previous versions of the electoral law, I’ve made the same argument. As the rules stand now, however, this is not completely accurate. The details of the new [...]

Comment on Egypt’s election law favors small parties, fractured parliament by David

David — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:43:01 +0000

Thank you for the feedback. Lukas and Bancki, you are correct and I appreciate the clarification. I took out that line on proportionality in a more recent version of this post.

Karim, my understanding comes from Article 15 of Law No. 38 Concerning the People’s Assembly, as well as what others have told me.

Comment on Egypt’s election law favors small parties, fractured parliament by Bancki

Bancki — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:14:48 +0000

Like Lukas Leuzinger, I’m wondering why you call simple quota largest remainer (SQLR) “slightly less proportional than other systems”. D’Hondt (largest average) favors bigger parties; SQLR is neutral, doesn’t favor bigger nor smaller parties. (See M. L. Balinski, H. Peyton Young, “Fair representation: meeting the ideal of one man, one vote”, 1982) That’s why D’Hondt is more commonly used to apportion seats between parties (and SQLR for the apportionment between districts). You use D’Hondt as yardstick because it’s more commonly used; “proportionality” is however a mathematical criterion by which SQLR beats D’Hondt.

Comment on Egypt’s election law favors small parties, fractured parliament by Andrew Reynolds on Egypt « Ahwa Talk

Andrew Reynolds on Egypt « Ahwa Talk — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 04:28:53 +0000

[...] I’ve mentioned, Egypt’s system really favors small parties almost as much as Tunisia’s did. Yes, the [...]