[EM] Asset-MMP

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 13.07.2022 20:42, Richard Lung wrote:
> 
> Kristofer,
> 
> The short answer is:
> 
> You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
> 
> (I have already given you a long answer.)
> 
> With regard to single members and multi-members, I've already dealt with
> this relation, in a post called "vote-count consistency" -- which nobody
> has answered.

I think that's because it seems clearly wrong, unless I'm reading it
incorrectly. As I read it, you suggest that an election for k winners
should accept ranked ballots of exactly k ranks. But that suggestion
would immediately make every voting method, single- or multi-winner,
fail independence of clones by being introducing a vulnerability to
vote-splitting.

> I regard single members as the least democratic and least stable form,
> much to be avoided, which I wrote about in a post on "the monarchic
> principle: too much power to one man."

You said the problems with MMP are its party list component, the
objections to Plurality as the constituency component, and that it's
susceptible to manipulation that makes it degrade to parallel voting.
The variant I proposed has no party list component, can be combined with
multi-winner methods like STV, and should not degrade to parallel
voting. Why is it still unsatisfactory?

-km