<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p> <br>
</p>
<p><font size="4">One of the deep questions is how the sciences seem
to follow the same structure of measurement, notably given by SS
Stevens and widely accepted. I wrote a book about it, Science is
Ethics as Electics, and made some progress since.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="4">To continue, on a different tack:</font></p>
<p>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Scientific
statements are conditional statements. They are of the nature:
If…, then… The
Andrae/Hare system expresses the scientific or knowledgeable
condition: if
given the same number of orders of choice, in a preference vote
or ranked
choice, as the number of seats, then<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>elective proportions or quotas of votes may be personally
determined by
the electorate.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">In
the mid-nineteenth century, the Andrae system and,
independently, the Hare
system, or quota-preferential method, thus established electoral
equality, as a
condition of liberty.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">This
was half a century before physics united the conservation laws
of mass and
energy, into a single mass-energy conservation law.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">The
continent of </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Europe</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> and its colonies
disunited the liberty-equality condition of the Carl Andrae law,
by abolishing
the preferential suffrage of a number order vote. The illiterate
x-vote, which
only expresses a single order of choice, cannot determine a
proportional count,
which is a multiple equality of ratios of votes to seats. The
X-vote for a
representative was demoted to a vote for the abstraction of a
“party.” The
Andrae system was demoted from a scientific or knowledgeable
statement of an
observable conditional relationship, to a “metaphysical”
statement. Of this,
David Hume held: “commit it to the flames.” Or, such a
statement, is, as Karl
Popper would grandly say: “outside the realm of scientific
discourse.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">The
English-speaking countries electoral reform also did not fare
well. The
irrational count of simple plurality has been retained. In
recent decades,
electoral reforms, to so-called proportional representation,
have seen a
preponderance of x-voting party dogmatism.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">The
history of electoral reform has not been so much progress as
regress. Whereas
physics has united its conservation laws of mass and energy,
politics has
dismantled electoral liberty in equality. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">The
modest gains, against great adversity, of the quota-preferential
method, or
single transferable vote proportional representation, have
demonstrated that
STV possesses the character of a good scientific theory. This is
its
explanatory power, whose range is not possessed by the usual
electoral methods.
For example, STV, the quota-preferential method, possesses the
power of
primaries, and prefered coalitions, within general elections.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">However,
the democratic advantages of STV are not desired where they are
dimly
appreciated, and not dimly appreciated where they are desired.
The Andrae/Hare
system perhaps was half a century ahead of its time. At a
conservative
estimate, its progress must now be over a century behind the
times, causing an
unstable imbalance between the natural and the moral sciences.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Scientific
progress is not sufficiently regulated by effective elections in
the common
interest. There is a real possibility that parasitic vested
interests kill the
host body of humanity.</span></p>
<span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold";mso-fareast-font-family:
SimSun;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">To name only
two cases,
both full of propaganda, the fossil fuels industry threatens an
irreversible
greenhouse effect, like Venus. And nuclear fission threatens, at
least, all
vertebrate life with radioactive fall-out, thru the military
extermination
industry, or its pseudo-civil atom plants by-product, at present,
terrorising
the world, in Zaporizhzhia</span>
<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>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/09/2022 04:05, Forest Simmons
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CANUDvfp3ys2HDkvhxW+ym4QCvYa2-pa8dazpz2Btd0mko=kaXA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">As a mathematician I love formal analogies among
apparently disparate fields of inquiry ... the greater the
apparent disparities, the more interesting ... and the greater
the potential for cross fertilization!</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 15, 2022, 6:28 PM
Richard Lung <<a href="mailto:voting@ukscientists.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">voting@ukscientists.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><font size="5">Vote and count conservation laws</font><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>When all the preference votes are
counted in an election method, like Binomial STV, the
law of the conservation of (preference) information is
fulfilled. In physics, energy concepts are being
translated into information concepts. The conservation
law of mass-energy is translated into conservation of
information.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Election method or electics may
have a corresponding conservation law to information
conservation of the vote. As JFS Ross said, every
election has a vote and a count. So, the corresponding
conservation law would be a conservation of the count.
The vote is summed or aggregated to the count, so vote
information conservation should cross-over into a
conservation of mass action.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In physics, the basic unit of
energy is that minimum packet of energy called the
quantum. Energy is never transfered in lesser amounts
than these discrete quanta. In electics, these quanta
are analogies to the quota count. Candidates are
proportionally elected on discrete equal ratios of votes
to seats.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The minimum elective vote is the
one vote of self-representation, associated with the
ancient Greek city-state. Here, the vote conservation
law merges with a count conservation law.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Self-representation is the case
of a minimum Hare quota, where one vote elects to one
seat.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>(It may be useful to compare
energy quanta with the election quota, tho the
individual perhaps correlates better to the atom than
the quantum.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>It is a bit confusing talking
about a minimum Hare quota, because the Hare quota gives
maximum proportional representation. Indeed, even a
minimum Hare quota of one vote gives maximum
(proportional) representation to one self-representing
voter: one seat for one vote.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>But suppose two voters contesting
one seat. The Hare quota is powerless to elect either,
unless one or the other transfers their vote. The
transferable vote is indeed a possibility, that should
be tried, but it may not break the dead-lock.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Hence, the Droop quota, which
adds one unit to the denominator of the Hare quota:</span><span>
2/(1+1) = 1. The Droop quota gives either candidate
voter an elective quota. This minimal case would be
decided on a random tie-break. </span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The Hare quota offers maximum
proportional representation, but it does so at a price.
To take the extreme case, of a single vacancy, a
representative elected, on the Hare quota, has to win
all the votes. For example, 100 voters, for a single
vacancy, would all have to vote for a single candidate,
to be elected. With the Droop quota, a candidate would
need only half the votes, to be elected. A double
vacancy requires two candidates to each win one third of
the votes each, giving two thirds proportional
representation. In general, the Droop quota combines a
minimal or least proportional representation with voter
choice.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The more seats per district or
constituency, the closer that the Droop quota
approximates to the Hare quota. But as the seats
increase, the increase, in proportional representation
of the Droop quota, is at an increasingly slower rate. A
triple member constituency ensures three-quarter or 75%
representation. That is up from nearly 67%
representation of a double member constituency, an
increase of over 8%. However, that 8% increase was
already less than the nearly 17% increase of
representation, between a double and a single member
constituency. A four-member constituency gives 80%
representation, but that is only up 5% from a three
member constituency with the Droop quota.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>This (Droop quota) decelerating
increase of representation with more seats is formally
the same as found in high-energy physics of special
relativity theory. As the motion of a physical object
significantly approaches light speed, the increasing
energy, put into that motion, increases the mass of the
body, and only has a decelerating increase in the body
speed. In theory, the body would have to achieve
infinite mass before it could reach the maximum speed
limit of light. Light itself has no rest mass but is
pure energy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>It is possible to make a formal
comparison between the motions of massive and massless
particles in physics, and minimum and maximum
proportions of representation, in election method. The
Hare quota, which gives maximum proportional
representation, compares to light, which moves at
maximum speed. Droop quota representation compares to
the motion of massive objects, significantly approaching
light speed.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The Hare quota gives maximum
equality of representation. Its analog is light, at
maximum speed. The Droop quota sacrifices some of that
equality for liberty of choice. Its analog is motion of
objects with rest mass. To put the analogy at its most
spare, energy compares to equality, and mass compares to
liberty. So, the conservation of mass-energy formally
compares to a conservation law of liberty-equality.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thus, a law of conservation of
(preference) vote information corresponds to a
conservation law of a liberty-equality count. <br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Richard Lung.<br>
</span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>