[EM] Consdervation of information
stepjak at yahoo.fr
Mon Jan 23 23:46:37 PST 2023
I'm not quite sure what you're saying below, but the Later-no-harm criterion is an argument *for* traditional STV, not against it.
Le lundi 23 janvier 2023 à 14:51:20 UTC−6, Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com> a écrit :
“The possibility of later harm,” alleged of parents, is an argument used by social services, in Britain, to excuse forced adoptions. It cannot be disproved. It is a superstition and persecution, incapable of scientific disproof, unworthy of a modern knowledge-based society. Likewise, a similar unproven and unprovable excuse against the use of STV, made, by a career party, in the Plant report, citing Riker, without demonstration, that stv is "chaotic."
More information about the Election-Methods