<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<big><big><br>
<small>Cambridge resisted 6 referendums in 16 years.
Massachusetts state government quarantines STV, there, lest
the politics of intelligent compromise prove a catching
disease. <br>
New York took three referendums in quick succession, by that
by-word for corruption, Tammany Hall, with the money and the
media on-side, to rid the city of STV, and return the city to
a one-party state that eventually reduced New York to
bankruptcy, and having to sell the city to the corporations. <br>
Campaigns for STV were motivated by its record for good
government against corruption, as in Cincinnati, under STV
judged by Forbes magazine the best run city in America. <br>
STV is "a democracy -- if you can keep it." to coin a phrase
of Benjamin Franklin. (Ireland did keep STV thru 2
referendums.)<br>
STV is order (in the vote) and proportion (in the count)
without which there would be no science and math (not to
mention the arts) and without which election methods are a
blunder.<br>
<br>
from<br>
Richard Lung.<br>
<br>
<br>
</small></big></big><br>
<br>
On 30/12/2016 20:43, Jack Santucci via Election-Methods wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAB1bumAGB+vTdikhkq5U1rVBtLpCH7zWeNFZPyHCjOPW8BDxvw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi, all.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My remark concerns Erik's on the susceptibility of STV to
repeal.
<div class="gmail_extra">
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I
don't think STV is a bad system, just a complicated one.
I do worry,<br>
as I mentioned in my original post, that this helps make
it very<br>
susceptible to repeal, since it's been repealed in all
US cities that<br>
have used it except one:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.jacksantucci.com/docs/papers/repeal_dec2016.pdf"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.jacksantucci.com/<wbr>docs/papers/repeal_dec2016.pdf</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/Brief%20History%20of%20PR.htm"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.mtholyoke.edu/<wbr>acad/polit/damy/articles/<wbr>Brief%20History%20of%20PR.htm</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001157823"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://catalog.hathitrust.<wbr>org/Record/001157823</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://archive.fairvote.org/library/history/true_experiences.htm"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://archive.fairvote.org/<wbr>library/history/true_<wbr>experiences.htm</a></blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The argument I make in "Exit from PR" above could
apply to any voting system with low effective
thresholds. It may apply to any PR system, period. Most
(all?) of what we know about PR's repeal (or reduction)
comes from countries where disloyalty in a legislative
coalition triggers dissolution. Dissolution can
reshuffle the parliamentary balance of power. I suspect
-- and this is a big hunch -- we see repeal/reductions
in parliamentary regimes when that reshuffling does not
happen.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Erik pointed out elsewhere that Norway uses PR
(candidate-based, no less) without the possibility of
snap elections. This could be a problem for my argument.
I guess it depends on what's been happening in Norway.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If anyone is attending the Southern Political Science
Association meeting in New Orleans next month, I'm
presenting "Exit" on Thursday afternoon.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't want to speak for now on the relative merits
of STV, MMP, OLPR, et cetera. The reason Americans chose
STV is itself interesting but too much for one thread.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Jack</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jack Santucci<br>
<div>
<div>Ph.D. Candidate in Government</div>
<div>Georgetown University</div>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.jacksantucci.com/" target="_blank">http://www.jacksantucci.com</a></div>
<div>202-681-5225 (Google Voice)</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
My sense is that US debate is dominated by the
IRV->STV path, even<br>
though single-vote MMP is a pretty straightforward
upgrade path for<br>
legislatures, and super-easy for voters. I've found the
Canadian<br>
reports from their many aborted electoral reform efforts
the most<br>
useful in my exploration of the subject. I recommend
checking out this<br>
report by Louis Massicotte that came out of the Quebec
reform<br>
discussions, one of the most rigorous examinations of
compensatory<br>
voting systems, which also concluded with a
recommendation for<br>
single-vote MMP:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.institutions-democratiques.gouv.qc.ca/publications/mode_scrutin_rapport_en.pdf"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.institutions-<wbr>democratiques.gouv.qc.ca/<wbr>publications/mode_scrutin_<wbr>rapport_en.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Erik<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Election-Methods mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Election-Methods@lists.electorama.com">Election-Methods@lists.<wbr>electorama.com</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.electorama.com/<wbr>listinfo.cgi/election-methods-<wbr>electorama.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 150, Issue 42<br>
******************************<wbr>*******************<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</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>