<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<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]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">STV & Incompleteness theorem continued.<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"">The voting systems of the world aim for
completeness. In other words, official voting systems aim to
complete the election of all the available representatives. This
is achieved despite inconsistencies in those voting methods.
This is in accord with the Incompleteness theorem, which applies
to algorithms in general and not merely democratic or would-be
democratic procedures.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Thus, the incompleteness theorem is sufficient to
explain the democratic inconsistencies of official elections. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">The incompleteness theorem explains Binomial STV, in
contrasting fashion. STV^, contrary to official methods, is a
consistent system but an incomplete one. The incompleteness,
however, is justified, not by logic, but by the evidence that
voters may be incompletely satisfied with candidates put before
them.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Therefore, it is not necessary to postulate an
Impossibility theorem, to explain inconsistencies in democratic
procedure. Indeed, Binomial STV shows that democratic procedure
can be a consistent, tho incomplete, election to all the
vacancies.</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"">The negativity of the Incompleteness theorem is
echoed in the so-called Impossibility theorem, theorem Arrow. A
moral for the incompleteness theorem, man cannot live by logic
alone, also demonstrates that mathematics is not enough to study
elections. Mathematicians do not live in a logical vacuum but
within a social context. The nineteen fifties was a particularly
unfortunate time for electoral democracy in the </span><span
style="font-size: 16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">USA</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">, when the monopolistic city machines already almost
exterminate STV/PR. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">The Impossibility theorem attempts to show that an
electoral system, based on a few reasonable principles,
nevertheless falls into inconsistencies. However, the “skeleton
key” or all-purpose epitome of election systems, set-up for
analysis, is itself a flawed model, indeed an inconsistent
correspondence of a vote to a count. So it is “impossible” to
see how anything but inconsistencies of voting method could be
deduced from the impossibility theorem. Kenneth Arrow adopts a
multi-preference vote with a single majority count. But a single
majority count follows from a single preference X-vote. And a
ranked choice vote, an ordered choice or multi-preference vote,
1, 2, 3,…, elects a multi-majority count, of 1, 2, 3,…, Members
per district. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">A form of Alternative Vote, chosen by Arrow, may
push some voters to elect their fifth preference, say, to a
single-member monopoly. But that is not the purpose of many
orders of choice, at all. Rather, it is to proportionally elect
mostly highly ranked choices, mainly first preferences, to a
district of many members. This may be called the Andrae
principle, after the original inventor of vote-count
consistency.</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"">Many prestigious demonstrations, of the
Impossibility theorem, appear to owe more to an Arbiter of
Fashion, such as a bountiful prize-giving committee, than a
credible proof. Generally, they consist of a handful of
single-member voting methods (which monopolies are the least
democratic) whose results differ, on the differing exactness of
their respective counts. The impossibility theorem, as
characterised, is not a theorem on the inconsistency of election
methods. It is merely a demonstration of greater or lesser
statistical accuracy in a count.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">These alleged impossibilities of democracy amount to
an academic echo of the Machine politics, that banished
“effective voting” from American city elections, as it is
banished from scientific consensus. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">The New York Times published a petition of over 200
academics, calling for Congress to be elected by multi-member
personal proportional representation, according to Voter Choice
Massachusetts.</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>
</body>
</html>