[EM] In defence of IRV

[Richard Lung]

By the way, I have studied the subject of election method, for over half a century, and written over half a dozen free Smashwords books on scientific method of elections etc.

Most recently, I published two short booklets or pamphlets on "Binomial STV". This looks like an ordinary preference vote or ranked choice ballot. The difference is that the preferences both elect and exclude. So, the voters now have as much power to exclude candidates, as well as elect candidates. Hence, the term bi-nomial STV.

Suppose 10 candidates for 5 seats. With a binomial count, your preference 10 counts as much to exclude a candidate, as preference 1 counts to elect a candidate. Preference 9 is as excluding, as preference 2 is electing, and so on. But you don't have to name all the preferences. Naming none of the preferences is like NOTA (none of the above).

No electoral system in the world offers this. They are all elections, plus arbitrary rules or ad hoc ways of excluding candidates, over which the public has little control. This is as true of STV as all the other systems -- until now.

Originally, I devised a whole logical structure called FAB STV: Four Averages Binomial Single Transferable Vote. (I wrote a full length book about it.) Recently, I have developed hand count versions.  My hand count versions do not transgress traditionally acceptable and unnoticable short-falls in STV accuracy, over the last century. But they are simpler, at least in conception. And they are much more powerful voting tools for the public. 

I ask your organisations to try them in pilot schemes. Ask me about the working. Send me your Binomial STV hand count of a Binomial STV election.

Profile page

https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience

Elect and Exclude.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1111349

Super-vote

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1106292

Regards,
Richard Lung.





On 15 Nov 2021, at 9:28 pm, Jan Šimbera <simbera.jan at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think in the US specifically there are constitutional barriers to multi-member districts.

As far as I understand both the US Constitution and [1], the barrier is not constitutional but on the level of a congressional act, making it much easier to change. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

[1]: The Apportionment Act of 1842: “In All Cases, By District” | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:05 PM Daniel Carrera <dcarrera at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:49 PM Jan Šimbera <simbera.jan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As an aside since the debate has broadened considerably anyway:
>> To me, a Central European, it is still quite strange how little the
>> American debate on electoral reform focuses on the option of multimember
>> constituencies (the reform of House elections from single-member
>> districts to a per-state PR method perhaps being the most obvious candidate).
>> The main argument I find for the "first show support, then negotiate"
>> paradigm is that it gives the votes more expressive power
>> AND makes the negotiation process more transparent and observable
>> for the general public.
> 
> 
> Yeah. I think multimember precincts are a brilliant solution but my impression is that anglo-saxon countries are really stuck on the idea of single member districts (Ireland being a notable exception). The argument I've heard is that the elected official is there to represent their particular region, but I've never been persuaded by that argument. I've lived in three anglo-saxon countries (Canada, UK, US) and national politics are always national. I've never heard of an MP or member of congress actually push for a little parochial issue that is specific to their particular spot in the country. It all seems to be party-line votes regardless. If politicians are going to behave that way, then we might as well just have a system with proportional representation. I would love to see STV in more places. I think in the US specifically there are constitutional barriers to multi-member districts.
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Daniel Carrera
> Postdoctoral Research Associate
> Iowa State University

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20211115/8c9a35ce/attachment.html>