[EM] Relative choice.

[Richard Lung]

Relative choice

Choice, just as much as motion, is relative. Indeed, voting for a choice 
is sometimes called voting for a “motion.” The current American campaign 
for ranked choice voting (RCV) is spreading across the continent, and 
stands to change the electoral map of the world. RCV won’t do much by 
itself to change who gets elected. A third-party might gain a foothold 
but it would still essentially be the old left-right duopoly.
Each voter has in principle an equal unit of voting power, as the size 
of the universal electorate divided by the number of electors equals one 
vote per person: one vote for each individual. Giving more votes, even 
as an equal number of points, cannot but serve, to discriminate against 
this basic equality.
Moreover, this nominal scale of measurement, as the name suggests, gives 
voters only a nominal, not a practical, power of equality.
That isn’t the only consideration. One thing the worldwide Cold War 
between first past the post and party lists have in common, as voting 
systems, is that they both use a stub vote, a one choice only shot at 
being represented. – Reduced to strategic voting or tactical voting to 
count for any choice at all, the stub vote may be a rejection rather 
than an election.
(It takes a binomial count of preference and reverse preference, to both 
elect and reject candidates. And to give the world a scientific 
one-truth voting method, in the process.)
With ranked choice voting, two of the four scales of measurement, widely 
accepted and widely used in the sciences, are achieved. That is half the 
battle to electoral enlightenment. The other two scales are covered by a 
count (in the single transferable vote, pioneered by Clarence Hoag and 
George Hallett, "Proportional Representation, The key to democracy).

Regards,

Richard Lung.