<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Elimination counts, I seem to remember were prescribed. But they are the wrong road, because they break the conservation of (preferential) information. To amend this requires a rational exclusion count (not an eliminative count), as well as a rational election count, which I've called Binomial STV.</div><div>Over a century of the Hare system (at-large STV/PR) as used in Cambridge city elections has shown. that traditional STV, with just a rational election, but a "last past the post" elimination count, is a sufficiently robust democratic representation.</div><div>Single members, tho, are maiorocracy, the tyranny of the majority, as John Stuart Mill, and Lani Guinier said. They give monopoly power to elected officials, from top to bottom of society. They are "elective dictatorship" as Hailsham said. In other words, democracy needs to move on from the ancient Greek tyranny, which elects a leader with a free hand over everyone else. Singles should be the exception, not the rule, in a democracy.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Richard Lung.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br>On 21 Jan 2023, at 1:11 am, Bob Richard (lists) <<a href="mailto:lists001@robertjrichard.com">lists001@robertjrichard.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div>
<style id="css_styles">
blockquote.cite { margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right:0px; border-left: 1px solid #cccccc }
blockquote.cite2 {margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right:0px; border-left: 1px solid #cccccc; margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 0px; }
a img { border: 0px; }
li[style='text-align: center;'], li[style='text-align: center; '], li[style='text-align: right;'], li[style='text-align: right; '] { list-style-position: inside;}
body { font-family: 'Segoe UI'; font-size: 12pt; }
.quote { margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; border-left: 5px #ebebeb solid; padding-left: 0.3em; }
</style>
Law professor Ned Foley has proposed what he seems to think is a new Concorcet-compliant method. He calls it "total vote runoff". <span style="background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);">My guess is that it has in fact been discussed on this list under another name. I am I right, and (if so) what do the members of this list call it?</span><div><br></div><div><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4328946">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4328946</a></div><div><br></div><div><div>Here is the summary description:</div></div><div><br></div><div>"Total Vote Runoff (TVR) is an electoral system designed to be identical to Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which is the most commonly understood and implemented form of Ranked Choice Voting in the United States, except for one key detail. Like IRV, TVR sequentially eliminates the weakest candidate on the ranked-choice ballot when no candidate is ranked first on a majority of ballots. Unlike IRV, however, TVR identifies the weakest candidate to be eliminated based on the total votes each candidate receives on all the ballots, rather than just the number of first-place votes (as IRV does). A candidate’s total votes from each ballot is defined as the number of other candidates the candidate is ranked higher than on the ballot — as being ranked higher than another candidate is equivalent to securing a vote against that candidate, given that ranked-choice ballots can be conceived as mathematically equivalent to a round-robin election among all the candidates on the ballot. "</div><div><br></div><div>--Bob Richard</div><div><br></div></div><div><span>----</span><br><span>Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info</span><br></div></body></html>