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

[Richard Lung]

Krisofer, thank you for reply, the reference is to HG Wells, who, used 
the term "demonstration" in The Elements of Reconstruction, 1916, with 
accompanying elucidation. This can be downloaded from the collection of 
his books at Project Gutenberg or from my edition of collected writings 
by Wells: The Angels Weep. HG Wells on Electoral Reform:

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/804800

  There does not have to be different methods for single member and 
multi-member election systems.. In fact, consistency demands that they 
use the same method. A general voting method can be done.

And majority counts were dismissed by John Stuart Mill as maiorocracy, 
the tyranny of the majority - taken-up by Lani Guinier. (Successful 
Tammany Hall-type Machine assaults on PR did not always achieve even 
majorities.) The majoritarian approach dismissed itself, with the 
limitation to its idea of democracy.

In my experience, voting does not always have to be "strategic" or 
deceitful. That is a sort of belief in an electoral Realpolitik, as the 
inevitability of systemic electoral fraud. Rather (as rationally 
invented) I have found that the consistent use of keep values always 
responds rationally, in a re-count of shuffled votes.

Regards,

Richard Lung.


On 07/04/2024 11:12, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> On 2024-04-07 09:39, Richard Lung wrote:
>>
>> Some comments about this voting methods poll seem to be in order.
>>
>> A referendum on voting methods is paradoxical, because you have to 
>> know good method, in order to find it. It's standard scientific 
>> method, explained by HG Wells over a century ago, that voting method 
>> is not a matter of opinion but a matter of demonstration.
>
> There's something about the way you write that's hard for me to 
> understand. For instance, I don't know what you mean by 
> "demonstration" here.
>
> But on the general point: I doubt the results will be different 
> between Condorcet methods, except perhaps up to ties - some methods 
> will return more ties than others. That's why I suggested a method 
> that has a low tie rate.
>> This opinion poll would access the views of list members but it also 
>> shows the disconnect with voters of the world, judging by the list of 
>> options, mentioned by Kristofer. The caution by, or attributed to, 
>> Werner Heisenberg is worth mentioning again: if you cannot at last 
>> come back and explain wat it is you have found, all your finding has 
>> been worthless.
>
> We do know what we would find, though: the accumulated opinions of the 
> people who participate, about what methods are more suitable than 
> others for political use.
>
>> Social choice theory has had 70 years to do this. They held a 50 year 
>> celebration, at turn of 2000. Where is their standard model of 
>> election method? Or is it an "Impossibility" in their fallible 
>> opinion? Their insisting on the Anglo-American single member system 
>> is a case of: what is may not be what's right (as David Hume said, 
>> and half the world seems not to think so). Single member elections 
>> automatically halve representation, its most inefficient form: "only 
>> half a democracy" (Roert Newland). Compared to that, all the tweaks 
>> to single member systems are insignificant, and not calculated to 
>> promote democratic reform or progress. Only a Dr Pangloss would 
>> suggest this is the best of all possible democratic worlds.
>
> There are so many methods because yes, there is an impossibility. We 
> can't have every desirable criterion at once, so we have to choose. 
> Namely:
>
> Arrow's says that there exists no ranked single-winner method (apart 
> from certain random exceptions not listed here) that can't be made to 
> change its mind by removing candidates who didn't win.
>
> Gibbard says that you can't be strategy-proof: whatever your method, 
> it will sometimes pay to vote tactically.
>
> Duggan-Schwartz says that the impossibility of being strategy-proof 
> remains *even for multi-winner*, unless you elect every candidate who 
> is someone's first preference.
>
> I would hardly dismiss them.
>
> I wouldn't say single-member district is the best of all possible 
> worlds. I might even say that better democracy reduces the use of 
> elections, by using selection by lot combined with deliberation 
> instead. But for the situations where you have to use single-winner, 
> it's a good idea to know what to use. Or to have a selection of good 
> methods to choose from.
>
> -km