Friday, May 11, 2007


I was fairly happy with how yesterday's presentation went. Being told it was crazy made me think it was potentially interesting if I could justify my proposal. I was worried that I didn't really have much interesting to say - largely defending myself with 'this is an ad hominem attack, and the same criticisms apply to compulsory voting'.

I've been persuaded that I do need to consider reasons why we might want compulsory/increased turnout - after all, it is possible we may want (nearly) universal turnout and not care about the reasons why people turnout. I also need to make clear that the justification I had in mind for reducing costs was based on forward-looking incentives, rather than backward-looking compensation. It will probably be a while until I get round to making revisions, since it's back to the thesis first, but these points are particularly useful.

The other thing that pleased me was the fact that, after the seminar, we did in fact use lottery-voting - with Sarah's hat - to decide between the King's Arms and University Club. (I lost, so it was back to KA - according to Julia's vote).

Labels: , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home