[EM] STV - the transferrable part is OK (fair), the sequential round elimination is not

[Juho]

Yes, majority rule is the default mechanism (sometimes complemented  
with super-majority requirements in key decisions like this).

Are there alternatives to this? In principle also ratings could be  
used somewhere to make the decision (if they would just work in  
practice), and other methods that are able to elect some consensus  
alternative even when there is a majority favouring some other  
alternative (tricky). In practice, majority rules.

In addition to this people in good positions in the existing system  
typically fight against (or don't eagerly promote) any change that  
might change their status to something worse. Election methods are in  
the very core of this process from the point of view of parties and  
representatives. That is why improvements, even clear and sensible  
ones, are seldom effectively promoted and reach majority support.

I tend to trust in open discussions and especially clear formulation  
of the alternative options for the future (e.g. by the EM people if  
not others). Also activism and movements outside the official  
political structure may impact the process. In principle the jointly  
agreed political structure should be enough to make things happen, but  
sometimes they need some "help to proceed". (Also media, the  
scientific process and books and opinions of respected citizens may be  
considered to be parts of the established process.)

Juho



On Oct 31, 2009, at 7:26 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:

> On Oct 31, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Juho wrote:
>
>> (PR makes sense in general but I wouldn't deny people the right to  
>> achieve the political balance using two-party systems if they so  
>> want.)
>
> How would this decision be made? Majority rule?