<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</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]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026"/>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/>
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Forest
Simmons recently reaffirmed that policy confined them to forms
of elimination
count, in IRV. As he said before, they are all non-monotonic.
The fact that colleagues
are persisting in this course, however, implies that this is
not a fatal
objection, to them.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">I
believe that it is only an issue, if it all, on the basis of a
flawed
assumption that elections are like an axiomatic system, not
allowing any
untoward consequences, such as a Riker example, and many
others.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">From
the statistical viewpoint, non-monotonicity might be just
“noise” in a <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>system.
In an attempt to disprove this, one
team resorted to the case of NASA using the (traditional)
single transferable
vote (the best available system) to estimate the collective
view of their
engineers, on best trajectories for a satellite launch.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> This
is hardly a convincing instance of supposedly “chaotic”
consequences of
non-monotonicity in STV elections of human candidates.</span>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Well
over a century of STV usage demonstrates, all things being
equal, that the
preference vote reliably corresponds to the proportional
count. The more
proportional the count, in larger constituencies, the greater
the proportion of
first preferences elected, together with a relatively few
higher preferences.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> Negligible
evidence of chaotic results with STV has been provided. </span>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">“The
possibility of later harm,” alleged of parents, is an argument
used by social
services, in </span><span style="font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">Britain</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">, to excuse forced
adoptions. It cannot be disproved. It is a superstition and
persecution,
incapable of scientific disproof, unworthy of a modern
knowledge-based society.
Likewise, a similar unproven and unprovable excuse against the
use of STV, made,
by a career party, in the Plant report, citing Riker, without
demonstration, that stv is "chaotic."<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Elections
have been derided precisely because they are only “a
statistic,” as if the
public are an uninformed rabble, unworthy of consultation,
except perhaps to
humor them.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> But elections are not an axiomatic system, with a
predetermined result to every
election.</span>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Thus,
I submit that failure to conserve preferential vote
information, or indeed
proportional count information (failure to conserve individual
and collective
information) is a better criterion of representation, than
non-monotonicity, in
first past the post election counts and last past the post
elimination counts.</span>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">I
invented a binomial stv system conserving all the preferences
in the count
(over a 4 or 5 seat minimal proportionality).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> Regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Richard Lung.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> </span></p>
</p>
</body>
</html>