<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<big><big><br>
To all,<br>
My innovation of Binomial STV should exclude least liked
candidates, who win thru, by split voting, or whatever. <br>
The voters make a ranked choice but have an incentive to put
Trump or Hillary in last position, if they actively dislike
them, because the bi- in binomial STV stands for a rational
exclusion count of the preferences reversed, as well as a
rational election count of the preferences. <br>
</big></big><big><big>In the simplest case (first order binomial
STV), t</big></big><big><big>he election keep values and the
(inverted) exclusion keep values of each candidate are
(geometrically) averaged. (This is an extension of Meek STV by
including quota-deficit as well as quota-surplus keep values for
every candidate.)<br>
The Binomial STV order of average keep values (lowest first) is
the order of preference, for candidates, by the whole community.
Binomial STV should work for a single vacancy, the candidate
with lowest keep value (provided it is below unity) being the
winner.<br>
If no candidate makes the quota (meaning no keep value equal to
or below unity) that means the required number of quotas for
vacancies have been filled by abstention votes (complete or
partial) which are also counted with Binomial STV. With this
system voters could just state their first few, and last few,
preferences, leaving the middle preferences blank. They would
all be counted.<br>
<br>
Re. 2nd order PR of the executive.<br>
Several EM members suggested ways to fill a proportionally
represented executive.<br>
Binomial STV should also settle the members of the government.
It is simply the lowest keep values, up to the number of
executive posts. The relative importance of the government posts
can be matched to the keep value order (subject to negotiation
between representatives). <br>
The first five lowest keep values might elect an inner cabinet,
with the lowest keep value candidate as premier, or first among
equals.<br>
Binomial transferable voting could elect, to the executive, the
more prefered of all the prefered representatives to the
legislature. The non-executive representatives, in effect form a
critical opposition in the legislature. The legislators have the
chance to prove themselves against their more popular colleagues
in power.<br>
To a lesser extent, this scenario should be possible with a
traditional, less sophisticated form of STV.<br>
<br>
Its advantage over the MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) system is
illustrated by Germany, where a PR executive has formed as a
grand coalition of the Social Democrats and the Christian
Democrats. This has left opposition to minor parties, and
encouraged opposition support for so-called extremist parties,
using violent activism as a means of getting opposition heard.<br>
<br>
from<br>
Richard Lung.<br>
<br>
</big></big><br>
<br>
On 19/09/2016 07:54, Jan Kok wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJMuS0Dsf1mov678g5RzDLDXQg=8AFmKj27TCg8nhd=uyYohLQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal">When you vote for someone for president,
you are saying, “<i>This</i> is who I want to run our country.
And I want more candidates like this in the future!”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What if you don’t like either Clinton or
Trump? There are 20 other candidates on the ballot in
Colorado, including Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, the
Libertarian and Green party candidates. Both Johnson and Stein
will be on the ballot in all or most states.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“But if I don’t vote for the lesser evil,
the greater evil may win.” Here’s how to free yourself from
that trap: Find someone who is politically opposite from you.
Form a pact with that person, that neither of you will vote
for Clinton or Trump. You are then free to vote for whomever
you really prefer, and at the same time you take away one vote
each from Clinton and Trump. In order to ensure that the other
person doesn’t cheat, fill out absentee ballots together, or
go to the polls together, and check each other’s ballots.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is that too much trouble? If you feel that
way, why even bother to vote at all?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This idea is promoted by VotePact.org. If
all the disaffected Democrats and Republicans would follow
this strategy, the effect on this and future elections would
be “yuge!” Help spread the word!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://electorama.com/em">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Richard Lung.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.voting.ukscientists.com">http://www.voting.ukscientists.com</a>
Democracy Science series 3 free e-books in pdf:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://plus.google.com/106191200795605365085">https://plus.google.com/106191200795605365085</a>
E-books in epub format:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience">https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>