[EM] Single/Multimember districts (was Re: In defence of IRV)

[Richard Lung]

"Hare RCV" is a corruption of what the Hare system is: at-large STV/PR. As still used in Cambridge, and once used in about 20 US cities.

The trouble with all election systems, including STV, is that the election rules, rather than the voters, decide how and who to exclude. 
(My invention of binomial stv gives the voters the power to exclude as well as elect.) The Droop quota is not the unchallengable choice of proportional count for a democratic representation.

The chief drawback of IRV is not the rare Burlington case. It is that its overall majority is minimally democratic. Traditional STV (unlike binomial stv) is not monotonic, because of ad hoc exclusion. But a century of evidence shows this cannot matter too much, practically, because stv delivers the proportional election of first preferences mostly, with a few high preferences elected, as well.

I wouldn't say you are a crackpot. But I can understand reformers impatience with to them a side issue. IRV, however, is itself a side issue, when you compare pioneering campaigning of Hoag and Hallett.

Regards,
Richard Lung.



On 18 Nov 2021, at 8:44 pm, robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:



> On 11/18/2021 9:12 AM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 16.11.2021 15:52, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>> Unfortunately it's top-two vote getters.  Each voter has two votes.
> 
> That's not a particularly good method, no; but if you succeed getting
> BTR-IRV enacted, and you decide to advocate for replacing the top-two
> method with STV, you could use the BTR version.
> 
> Every STV variant with the same surplus election mechanism passes Droop
> proportionality, so modifying the elimination mechanism (like BTR-IRV
> does) won't make it fail Droop. So getting BTR-IRV passed shouldn't
> hinder future adoption of STV.
> 
> I don't know if replacing the top-two method with STV is feasible,
> though, as I don't know enough about Vermont politics.
> 

things, regarding RCV, are looking a bit better, but i cannot assume we'll succeed.  if we **do** succeed, it will be another historic first for our "brave little state".  we are the first state (and i think the only state) to outright ban billboards from our skies and landscapes.  and we were the very first state to give same-sex couples **some** legal recognition and protection with a legal status called "Civil Union".

if Vermont can *learn* from the failure of Hare RCV in 2009 and not be in denial of it, and with the push to adopt RCV (that is currently stalled in committee), we can make history.  Good history.  History befitting a discerning and progressive "brave little state".  rather than ignore or deny the problem, we can recognize and understand the problem and act to correct the problem with model legislation that is 200 years in the making.

i got some legislators' attentions, and this single-member district thing got more of their attention (because, if any of my maps are adopted, i will have bailed out some of their asses).  with Nicolaus Tideman offering to publish my paper in Constitutional Political Economy (this is *still* tentative, it's in the works, but i am feeling pretty secure about it), i gain more credibility (in the Vermont legislature) because the Progressive Party and FairVote and VPIRG people are still trying to dismiss me as a crackpot.  and they still deny the fact about Hare RCV electing the wrong candidate in 2009 (resulting in an explicit spoiler and punishing non-tactical voting).

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info