<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/04/2022 09:22, Richard Lung
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e3e5c175-81b8-0e13-3511-8db5367ef48b@ukscientists.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Kristofer,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">“election criteria” are to be found in the four
scales of measurement, which I have been discussing. They are
the criteria not just of “electics” but of the sciences in
general. STV has essentially satisfied the main four scales,
for nearly one and a half centuries. Commencing with the
philosophes, of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment,
continuing with the philosophical radicals, pre-eminently John
Stuart Mill. Mill advocated universal male and female
suffrage, amounting to a nominal scale of one person one vote.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">The philosophes provided the ordinal scale, in
preference voting. Borda provided an assumed interval scale.
In the 1850s, Carl Andrae , also Thomas Hare, provided an
ordinal scale and a ratio scale, with Personal Representation
by STV (preference voting and proportional counting). JB
Gregory provided a real interval scale for STV, in 1880.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Before the twentieth-century, in </span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">North America</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">, Personal Representation was already being
advocated, for instance in </span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">New York</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">, as part of the Progressive Era. In the early
twentieth century, Clarence Hoag and George Hallett picked up
on HG Wells, a direct intellectual descendant of Hare and
Mill, advocating at-large STV/PR.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">I was surprised to find a predominance of
mathematicians (or to a lesser extent, those of a scientific
background) in the development and promotion of the
Andrae/Hare system.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Judged by their adherence to scientific
measurement, mathematicians played a positive role in
realising democratic voting method.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Since the mid-twentieth century, mathematicians
have played a negative role, towards election method,
epitomised by the so-called Impossibility theorem. That school
has failed to develop a "standard model" of election method,
which was previously developed from the Andrae/Hare system.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Richard Lung.<br>
</span></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]--></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08/04/2022 23:14, Kristofer
Munsterhjelm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5494b31a-079f-c013-84a6-220fbb882dc9@t-online.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 05.04.2022 19:56, Richard Lung wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 05/04/2022 10:22, Richard Lung wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Thru-out the world of academe, from the American Mathematical Society
to innumerable social choice classes, can or could be found examples
of how about five different single-member voting systems all produce
different results. This is held to demonstrate a theorem of the
Impossibility of determining a winner.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">That doesn't seem to be related to either single- vs multi-winner or the
nonexistence/coherence of voting method criteria. It's more related to
IIA and rock-paper-scissors elections.
Would you say that my estimator analogy makes sense and shows that
election criteria can exist and be coherent?
-km
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>