[EM] Amnon Rubinstein's Proposal for Electoral Reform in Israel

[James Gilmour]

> Antonio Oneala> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 1:13 AM
You said:
> I've never really been a fan of STV-PR. It's still a system 
> that's not independent of irrelevant alternatives, so in most 
> states it squeezes out third parties and moderates, unless 
> you expand the districts to an enormous size

I asked:
On what evidence do you base this assertion?

You replied:
> > Besides that fact that practically every country that has 
> > used STV has boiled down to a more or less two-party system?

So I asked: 
> Would you care to list the countries and states around the 
> world that use STV-PR together with the numbers of parties
> represented in their parliaments before they used STV-PR and 
> now after many years of using STV-PR?

You now reply:
> It is simply a fact that STV is not a system that is 
> independent of irrelevant alternatives.  If X and Y are 
> competing, adding A to the list could cause one of them to 
> lose.  

In other words, you have NO evidence to justify your damning assertion.  We are well aware of the defects in STV-PR,
including the lack of independence from irrelevant alternatives (in all versions except Meek STV).  But that is not
evidence that where real voters have used STV-PR in real public elections, STV-PR "has boiled down to a more or less
two-party system".  Indeed, there is good evidence to the contrary.

It is right and proper to explore and expose the theoretical defects in all voting systems, but for practical reform
those concerns need to be tempered by the evidence from experience.  We have more than 80 years of practical experience
for STV-PR, so its well-known theoretical defects can be set in context.  STV-PR will create a two-party political
system ONLY if that is what the voters want.

The adoption of STV-PR could make an effective contribution to the resolution of some of the political problems in
Israel that arise directly from its current voting system.

James Gilmour