<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<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""><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold""> Freedom
and determinism </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">An
election system assumes freedom of choice, from the voters.
There is no right
or wrong result to be determined. Which indeed has never been
proved. But that
is what social choice theory, led by theorem Arrow, illogically
assumed. What
it assumed as reasonable considerations are its own improvised
incomplete electoral
system (tagged onto maiorocracy, the tyranny of the majority),
not worthy of
calling democratic, without benefit, as it is, of the historical
development of
election method.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold""> If
any election method has no determinate result, then there is no
criterion by
which it can be refuted. For instance, the </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">Burlington</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">
result, at odds
with a Condorcet winner does not necessarily discredit it. It is
only a
consideration, and a dubious one, at that. </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">Laplace</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">
said, over two
centuries ago, that Condorcet pairing is illegitimate, for not
taking into
account the relative importance of orders of preference. But the
fixation on a “Condorcet
winner” bolsters the (minimally democratic) single member
system.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold""> Preference
voting or ranked choice voting is itself undeniably the
essential condition for
reforming the vote. Undeniably, because orders of preference do
exist, as the
so-called “wasted vote” and strategic or tactical voting prove
beyond doubt.
But a given number of orders of preference imply a given number
of seats per
constituency, otherwise there would be no point in stating them,
the point
being that stating the candidates chosen in order is to elect
several prefered candidates
before others. To meet this implication leads to the requirement
of quota
counting (freedom of the vote with equality of the count), and
so forth.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">Contrarily,
abandoning higher preferences for lower preferences, in a
single-member system,<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is
the height of inefficiency, for
granting voters wishes. That is, beyond the great work of
replacing, </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">with
a ranked choice vote, </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">the
illiterate x-vote, which is a one-preference stub vote
(producing disproportionate results even in a two-party system).<br>
</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.<br>
</span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>