[EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 150, Issue 42

[Richard Lung via Election-Methods]

Cambridge resisted 6 referendums in 16 years. Massachusetts state 
government quarantines STV, there, lest the politics of intelligent 
compromise prove a catching disease.
New York took three referendums in quick succession, by that by-word for 
corruption, Tammany Hall, with the money and the media on-side, to rid 
the city of STV, and return the city to a one-party state that 
eventually reduced New York to bankruptcy, and having to sell the city 
to the corporations.
Campaigns for STV were motivated by its record for good government 
against corruption, as in Cincinnati, under STV judged by Forbes 
magazine the best run city in America.
STV is "a democracy -- if you can keep it." to coin a phrase of Benjamin 
Franklin. (Ireland did keep STV thru 2 referendums.)
STV is order (in the vote) and proportion (in the count) without which 
there would be no science and math (not to mention the arts) and without 
which election methods are a blunder.

from
Richard Lung.




On 30/12/2016 20:43, Jack Santucci via Election-Methods wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> My remark concerns Erik's on the susceptibility of STV to repeal.
>
>     I don't think STV is a bad system, just a complicated one. I do worry,
>     as I mentioned in my original post, that this helps make it very
>     susceptible to repeal, since it's been repealed in all US cities that
>     have used it except one:
>
>     http://www.jacksantucci.com/docs/papers/repeal_dec2016.pdf
>     <http://www.jacksantucci.com/docs/papers/repeal_dec2016.pdf>
>     https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/Brief%20History%20of%20PR.htm
>     <https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/Brief%20History%20of%20PR.htm>
>     https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001157823
>     <https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001157823>
>     http://archive.fairvote.org/library/history/true_experiences.htm
>     <http://archive.fairvote.org/library/history/true_experiences.htm>
>
>
> The argument I make in "Exit from PR" above could apply to any voting 
> system with low effective thresholds. It may apply to any PR system, 
> period. Most (all?) of what we know about PR's repeal (or reduction) 
> comes from countries where disloyalty in a legislative coalition 
> triggers dissolution. Dissolution can reshuffle the parliamentary 
> balance of power. I suspect -- and this is a big hunch -- we see 
> repeal/reductions in parliamentary regimes when that reshuffling does 
> not happen.
>
> Erik pointed out elsewhere that Norway uses PR (candidate-based, no 
> less) without the possibility of snap elections. This could be a 
> problem for my argument. I guess it depends on what's been happening 
> in Norway.
>
> If anyone is attending the Southern Political Science Association 
> meeting in New Orleans next month, I'm presenting "Exit" on Thursday 
> afternoon.
>
> I don't want to speak for now on the relative merits of STV, MMP, 
> OLPR, et cetera. The reason Americans chose STV is itself interesting 
> but too much for one thread.
>
> Best,
> Jack
>
> Jack Santucci
> Ph.D. Candidate in Government
> Georgetown University
> http://www.jacksantucci.com <http://www.jacksantucci.com/>
> 202-681-5225 (Google Voice)
>
>
>
>     My sense is that US debate is dominated by the IRV->STV path, even
>     though single-vote MMP is a pretty straightforward upgrade path for
>     legislatures, and super-easy for voters. I've found the Canadian
>     reports from their many aborted electoral reform efforts the most
>     useful in my exploration of the subject. I recommend checking out this
>     report by Louis Massicotte that came out of the Quebec reform
>     discussions, one of the most rigorous examinations of compensatory
>     voting systems, which also concluded with a recommendation for
>     single-vote MMP:
>
>     https://www.institutions-democratiques.gouv.qc.ca/publications/mode_scrutin_rapport_en.pdf
>     <https://www.institutions-democratiques.gouv.qc.ca/publications/mode_scrutin_rapport_en.pdf>
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Erik
>
>
>     ------------------------------
>
>     Subject: Digest Footer
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Election-Methods mailing list
>     Election-Methods at lists.electorama.com
>     <mailto:Election-Methods at lists.electorama.com>
>     http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>     <http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com>
>
>
>     ------------------------------
>
>     End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 150, Issue 42
>     *************************************************
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info


-- 
Richard Lung.
http://www.voting.ukscientists.com
Democracy Science series 3 free e-books in pdf:
https://plus.google.com/106191200795605365085
E-books in epub format:
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161231/f170536c/attachment-0001.htm>