[EM] BTR-like phrasing of Benham

[Richard Lung]

Alright, fair point.
Thankyou for troubling to explain.

I think American electoral reform is going adrift, in preference without 
proportion, as others go adrift in the other direction (proportion 
without preference).
An either a vote reform or a count reform will not solve the problem of 
representation.

Richard L.


On 07/12/2019 20:22, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> On 07/12/2019 19.32, Richard Lung wrote:
>> "Tell that to the IRVists" is not an argument. You could say that about
>> any system partisans.
> It's not an argument against the claim "elimination is bad". It's an
> explanation of the context. At this point, I think the best way to
> highlight that context is simply to quote Robert:
>
>> So if I had my druthers, it would not be BTR-STV.  But here I am in Burlington Vermont of all places.
> In other words, if you have to choose a method in a vacuum, it should
> not be BTR-STV. If you have to choose a method in a vacuum and the
> electorate is strategic and you want to use Benham, you should not use
> my language to implement it.
>
> The whole point of the language is to produce something that is close
> enough to IRV to be acceptable to the partisans or partisan-friendly. If
> you didn't have that constraint, you wouldn't need to do that. But for
> people who are in that situation, my language could be useful.
>
> (Now, if I were to argue in favor of or against elimination as a
> mechanism, I would've said something entirely different :-)
>