[EM] Fwd: non-transferable voting is defective

[Michael Garman]

That doesn’t mean some methods are “true” and others aren’t, as you said on
April 3. Some methods might be better, but that’s entirely different.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 8:56 AM Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com>
wrote:

>
> I received this:
>
> "You still haven’t answered the question of what you mean by “electoral
> truth.” "
> I've just given you an answer, which you have not answered.
> Please do not be impertinent. It is only avoiding the issue of election
> method, of which you are accusing others.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Lung.
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [EM] non-transferable voting is defective
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 08:14:24 +0100
> From: Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com> <voting at ukscientists.com>
> To: EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
>
>
> The reason to believe non-transferable voting is defective comes from HG
> Wells, and I fully agree with it. It seems someone here doesn't.
>
> Paraphrasing, Wells said, whenever the simple and obvious method of a
> single non-transferable vote is used, elections divide into two
> antagonistic factions, describing modern Anglo-American politics perfectly,
> and also, for that matter, the party-list world, which generally forms two
> coalitions of left versus right, from a leading party list with some 20% or
> 30+% of the votes.
>
> The voting systems of the world are a politicians-made anarchic
> self-seeking shambles.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Lung.
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240415/d21a6750/attachment.htm>