[EM] Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections

[Richard Lung]

That may be so. As a matter of fact, it is possible to use STV in single 
member constituencies, tho not of course possible to have PR in single 
member constituencies. How it can work, very basically, is if the STV 
comprises both an election count and an exclusion count. Then the 
election is determined by over-all keep values (with the exclusion count 
inverted for a second-opinion election count.)  So called first order 
Binomial STV is  thereby shown to be a consistnt system. But any single 
member system is, as Robert Newland said, "only half a democracy."

We need to get away from single elections. The string of US presidents, 
keeping the futile Vietnam war going (as portrayed in the Spielberg 
film, The Post) and other cases like the second Iraq War, proves the 
point that political monarchies or monopolies of power are to be 
avoided. The president should be a chairman of a generously 
proportionally elected cabinet.

Regards,

Richard Lung.




On 06/04/2024 12:51, James Gilmour wrote:
> I don't think any "open-ended" question could give clear and  > unambiguous results. For that you need two separate polls: one on > 
election methods for single-winner elections; the other, separate > 
poll, on election methods for multi-winner elections. James Gilmour > > 
 >> -----Original Message----- From: Election-Methods >> 
[mailto:election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com] On Behalf Of >> 
Joshua Boehme Sent: 05 April 2024 22:05 To: 'EM' >> 
<election-methods at lists.electorama.com> Subject: Re: [EM] Poll on >> 
voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections >> >> 
 >> I had a similar thought. If the question is more open-ended, maybe 
 >> adding "(if applicable)" to the proportional representation option 
 >> would make it clearer. (My thought process here is that one of the 
 >> goals of this poll is to summarize current thinking for >> 
*non*-experts, so extra little nudges of explanation can help.) >> >> >> 
On 4/5/24 16:14, James Gilmour wrote: >>> There's some muddled thinking 
here. >>> >>> If you are electing a president or a mayor, you will use a 
 >>> single-winner election method. >>> >>> If you are electing a 
"representative assembly" like a parliament >>> or town council, you 
would use (should use) a multi- >> winner election method. Only be using 
a multi-winner method can >> you begin to ensure that the elected 
assembly is properly >> representative of those who voted. >>> >>> So 
before you hold your "Poll on voting systems", you must define >>> the 
purpose of the election for which the voting >> system is to be used. 
 >>> >>> James Gilmour Edinburgh, Scotland >>> >>> >>>> -----Original 
Message----- From: Election-Methods >>>> 
[mailto:election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com] On >>>> Behalf Of 
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: 05 April 2024 18:55 To: >>>> Filip Ejlak 
<tersander at gmail.com>; EM >>>> <election-methods at lists.electorama.com> 
Subject: Re: [EM] Poll >>>> on voting-systems, to inform voters in 
upcoming >>>> enactment-elections >>>> >>>> On 2024-04-05 16:03, Filip 
Ejlak wrote: >>>>> First thing: it's surprising how all the options that 
have >>>>> been mentioned are single-winner methods, despite the poll 
 >>>>> subject not being worded in such a restrictive way. Are >>>>> 
multi-winner options allowed as well, or should this be a >>>>> 
different poll? Because it needs to be said that _every >>>>> 
legislative election needs proportional representation_. I >>>>> guess 
any single-winner method, no matter how good, will be >>>>> bad in 
comparison with a PR method. So if multi-winner >>>>> options were 
allowed in the poll, I would nominate *STV *(a >>>>> Condorcet-compliant 
variant would be better if there was any >>>>> polynomial one with good 
recognition; an optional indirect >>>>> element - like GVT, but strongly 
improved - would also be >>>>> nice). >>>>> >>>>> And speaking of 
single-winner methods, in my opinion >>>>> *Woodall* and *Benham* seem 
to be the best, at least among >>>>> the well-known ones. While Woodall 
(especially Schwartz >>>>> Woodall) is perhaps marginally better, Benham 
is so easy to >>>>> explain (and it's a very obvious/natural way to make 
IRV >>>>> actually good) that it should be seriously considered by >>>>> 
voting reform campaigners. So I'd like to nominate these >>>>> two. >>>> 
 >>>> I agree: if the poll is primarily meant to be about >>>> 
single-winner methods, it would still be useful to have a "use >>>> 
multiwinner PR instead" option, to see how well it would do >>>> 
compared to the single-winner methods. >>>> >>>> I'd also suggest the 
following methods: >>>> >>>> Majority Judgement (as a category; includes 
usual judgement >>>> etc.) Approval with manual runoff (since it has 
seen actual >>>> use) Copeland//Borda (proposed by Equal Vote) >>>> >>>> 
and to echo Joshua Boehme, I'd also like to know what it's a >>>> poll 
of: the theoretically best method, the one with best >>>> chance of 
passing a reform effort, most bang for the buck, or >>>> something else? 
 >>>> >>>> On an aside, STV with ranked pairs elimination is not too bad 
 >>>> a polytime Condorcet-reducing STV method IMHO. RP's LIIA >>>> 
compliance reduces the chaos you would otherwise get from >>>> 
elimination. It tends to have somewhat of a center bias within >>>> the 
"clusters" (solid coalitions entitled representation by >>>> Droop >> 
proportionality), but that might not be too bad if it deters >> 
extremist kingmaker scenarios. >>>> (You'd do a ranked pairs election 
every time you've elected >>>> someone and eliminated him from the 
ballots, then eliminate >>>> from the RP loser up until someone exceeds 
the quota, then >>>> elect him, distribute surpluses, and do a new RP 
election, and >>>> so on.) >>>> >>>> -km > > ---- Election-Methods 
mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em > for list infoobert 
Newland said "only half a democracy."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240406/3dbcc718/attachment-0001.htm>