[EM] Winners or representation?

[Richard Lung]

On 11/04/2022 09:22, Richard Lung wrote:
>
>
> Kristofer,
>
> “election criteria” are to be found in the four scales of measurement, 
> which I have been discussing. They are the criteria not just of 
> “electics” but of the sciences in general. STV has essentially 
> satisfied the main four scales, for nearly one and a half centuries. 
> Commencing with the philosophes, of the eighteenth-century 
> Enlightenment, continuing with the philosophical radicals, 
> pre-eminently John Stuart Mill. Mill advocated universal male and 
> female suffrage, amounting to a nominal scale of one person one vote.
>
> The philosophes provided the ordinal scale, in preference voting. 
> Borda provided an assumed interval scale. In the 1850s, Carl Andrae , 
> also Thomas Hare, provided an ordinal scale and a ratio scale, with 
> Personal Representation by STV (preference voting and proportional 
> counting). JB Gregory provided a real interval scale for STV, in 1880.
>
> Before the twentieth-century, in North America, Personal 
> Representation was already being advocated, for instance in New York, 
> as part of the Progressive Era. In the early twentieth century, 
> Clarence Hoag and George Hallett picked up on HG Wells, a direct 
> intellectual descendant of Hare and Mill, advocating at-large STV/PR.
>
> I was surprised to find a predominance of mathematicians (or to a 
> lesser extent, those of a scientific background) in the development 
> and promotion of the Andrae/Hare system.
>
> Judged by their adherence to scientific measurement, mathematicians 
> played a positive role in realising democratic voting method.
>
> Since the mid-twentieth century, mathematicians have played a negative 
> role, towards election method, epitomised by the so-called 
> Impossibility theorem. That school has failed to develop a "standard 
> model" of election method, which was previously developed from the  
> Andrae/Hare system.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Lung.
>
>
> On 08/04/2022 23:14, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>> On 05.04.2022 19:56, Richard Lung wrote:
>>> On 05/04/2022 10:22, Richard Lung wrote:
>>>> Thru-out the world of academe, from the American Mathematical Society
>>>> to innumerable social choice classes, can or could be found examples
>>>> of how about five different single-member voting systems all produce
>>>> different results. This is held to demonstrate a theorem of the
>>>> Impossibility of determining a winner.
>> That doesn't seem to be related to either single- vs multi-winner or the
>> nonexistence/coherence of voting method criteria. It's more related to
>> IIA and rock-paper-scissors elections.
>>
>> Would you say that my estimator analogy makes sense and shows that
>> election criteria can exist and be coherent?
>>
>> -km
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20220411/33e222e2/attachment.html>