[EM] Voting System - Wiki

Michael Ossipoff email9648742 at gmail.com
Tue May 20 12:34:49 PDT 2014

> I don't specify that because, when I refer to official public political
> elections, I mean all of them. But yes, certainly elections to state and
> national office are the imporatnt ones here, and those are the ones that I
> really mean when i say "official public political elections".\
You wrote:

> Readers need to understand that in the U.S. most elections are plurality
> elections, and therefore the comparisons are likely to refer to
> improvements of the plurality method. Maybe that should be stated
> explicitly to make the scope of the claim clear.

Yes, certainly I'm referring to improvements over Plurality. But of course
it's difficult to find anything as bad as Plurality.  I'd say it's just
matter of finding the best method for a particular kind of conditions.

> You continued:
>>  Typically one has to use one method that works well enough in all
>> possible situations.
> [endquote]
> Certainly not.
> I'm not saying that we should vary the voting system from one election to
> the next, but I do say that there are  broad longterm conditions that
> obtain for long periods (but it would be nice if current conditions don't
> obtain for too long), and that the votnig system should be optimized for
> those longterm condtions.
You replied:

> Different parties might have different (strategic) thoughts on which
> methdod is best for some particular region.

That's for sure. That's a certainty. Let me make it clear that I'm
recommending for progressives. If anyone is a Republocat-preferrer, then my
advice to you is to resist and oppose any change from Plurality.

(but I question whether there really are any Republocrat-preferrers, other
than the oligarchy who own the Republocratic Party, and that party's
management and candidates, and mass-media employees and mangageent, and
other well-paid oligarchy-employees--but all those people are only a tiny
percentage of the population)

Other than that, my voting-systrem recommendations are only for

> I mean that it might be difficult to find an agreement between the
> politicians on which method to use in each region and election. As you well
> kow, even experts can often disagree on when certain properties of a method
> are needed and when not.

There's little if any agreement among experts, because their purposes
differ drastically. Their social goals, and the matter of what or whom
influences them.   ...and, aside from that, just their personal preferences
and prejudices. Many are simply committed to a voting system, or to some
popular paradigm or set or set of assumptions.

I suggest that it would be a real mess to use different methods for
different regions, and or different elections.

But you mentoned politicians.  I hope that no one is expecting any help
from them, for voting-system reform. "Politicians" now means"Republocrat

> To me the easiest solution would be to agree clear rules on what methods
> (that work well enough in all anticipated situations) are to be used
> everywhere when the next elections are as far away as possible.

Right now that would be ICT, provided that people are able to believe its
FBC compliance. But media have enormous power to convince, and media may
well convince people to oppose it. Approval's FBC compliance is quite
obvious, and media would have a harder time discrediting or criticizing

But that's all fantasy, of course, because it's irrelevant which voting
system would be best for current conditions, because reform is quite
impossibe with our current Republocratic government.

Hence my suggestion that the Green scenario is more relevant.  For that:
IRV, Benham, Woodall.

> Otherwise things might get too "political", i.e. strategic games might
> start already from the selection of the election method.

No, that's inevitable, because different methods benefit different people.
I speak only to the progressives, who would benefit from the methods I
recommend. I make no pretense that anyone else would benefit from those
methods--other than people who' benefit from progressive poicies.

> At least there might be an agreed fallback method that will be used if the
> politicians are unable to reach consensus on which method to use

Politicians already have that conensus: Plurality.

...except for progressive candidates, who technically could also be called
"politicians", though I hate to insult them with that dirty word.

Progressive parties have a consensus too: IRV.

As I've been saying, IRV would be excellent for the Green scenario, though
Benham or Woodall would be somewhat better.

> (maybe you thought that in the U.S. that would be plurality

Yes, it is.

> (which is a bit risky since the top two parties might stck to that
> forever, if given a chance)).

Of course theys will,, if by "two top parties", you're mistakenly referring
to the Republocrats.

They aren't the two top parties. They're merely the media-allowed party,
the officially allowed party. Only in that sense are the Republocrats

Michael Ossipoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20140520/9a070fcc/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list