[EM] Later No Help? Better Late Than Never (was IRV Finisher DSV)

[Richard Lung]

"Later no help" turns out to be an old foe, sabotaging other partys primaries by voting for their dud candidates. A couple of decades ago, US constitutional lawyers argued endlessly about open or closed primaries. The dilemma is solved by STV, as Hoag and Hallett were well aware, in the 1930s. And as Vernon Bogdanor also said: At-large STV/PR doesn't need primaries.
The same holds for Binomial STV. Why wouldn't it?
UK Labour, Plant report opposed STV, precisely because Irish elections do solve the primaries problem, which Labour reviled as "intra-party competition." They avowedly supported the Additional Member System because it didn't threaten their incumbency.
A New Zealand Labour Royal Commission parroted UK Labour and after a couple of referendums, lo! NZ, -- well, for health boards, a matter of life and death, they have STV -- for politicians general elections, they have the idiot system.
The real threat to democracy is not an alleged illogic of democratic procedure, but wilful ignorance of the reality that contestants cannot be their own referees.

Regards,
Richard Lung.



On 18 Jun 2022, at 9:49 am, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de> wrote:

> On 6/17/22 10:03 PM, Forest Simmons wrote:
> This IRV finisher is a partial fulfillment of the IRV (fake) promise of Reliable Later Help. We should call the method BLTN, Better Late Than Never (aka Bacon Lettuce Tomato Not)
> It tries to do what Kevin's Gradual Approval does, but too little too late ... still, better than nothing!

Speaking of the LNHs, does IRNR pass them? My first guess would be so, but perhaps the change from Plurality to Range for the exclusion mechanism changes things?

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