<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you for your reply.</p>
<p>Perhaps you have "no idea" because your reasoning doesn't
strictly follow. And perhaps you jump in with your (further) "No"
without a real disagreement. <br>
</p>
<p>Apportionment has its place in Congress, for instance, but is the
feature of oligarchic party list systems, in the context of voting
methods discussed, and quotas the feature of democratic forms of
"proportional representation." <br>
</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Richard Lung.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/03/2024 23:42, Closed Limelike
Curves wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+euzPiFD3tLiZkJpcWeyDv6GtNRCDY0SBR_c-ugH4_vazGXgQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<p>As for the profered non-monotonicity reason for
abolishing STV, this is solely in the
Arrow-theorem-doctrinaire critics imagination, bearing
no connection to reality.</p>
</blockquote>
<div>No idea what this refers to, given STV isn't related
to Arrow's theorem.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The
non-monotonicity of STV just owes to it trailing a
remnant of plurality voting, in its "last past the post"
exclusion count.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>No, the issue is the multi-stage method—the more
elimination rounds you have, the more likely you are to
have a negative voting weight event. Pretty much every
sequential-loser method has the same problem.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> The
Surplus transfer election count, especially Meek method,
is monotonic.<br>
</blockquote>
<div>That's also not correct; see Pukelsheim's book on
apportionment for why every quota rule method is
nonmonotonic. I do think <i>most</i> of STV's
nonmonotonicity comes down to the IRV elimination,
though.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at
12:39 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:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Exactly so, Michael Garman. opposition was incited
against STV because: You'll get a black mayor. <br>
</p>
<p>Indeed you would. The one or two communists elected by
STV in NYC were representing sweated labour in the textile
industry. No mention of the fact that abolishing STV gave
one-party rule. In NYC the Machine, Tammany Hall
bankrupted the city, for the classic reason of lack of
opposition holding to account. The city machines held
"battering ram" referendums with the money and publicity
on side. They succumbed to the onslaught except in
Cambridge with a 30,000 strong MIT, which had to endure 6
referendums in 16 years. Such was the fanatical
meal-ticket politics of the one-party machines. STV had
been promoted, despite politicians power-greed, by
mathematicians, who knew their business and weren't afraid
of "the key to democracy."<br>
</p>
<p>As for the profered non-monotonicity reason for
abolishing STV, this is solely in the
Arrow-theorem-doctrinaire critics imagination, bearing no
connection to reality. The non-monotonicity of STV just
owes to it trailing a remnant of plurality voting, in its
"last past the post" exclusion count. The Surplus transfer
election count, especially Meek method, is monotonic.</p>
<p>I have invented an STV exclusion count which is an
iteration of the election count; both therefore monotonic;
a "scientific" one-truth voting method, unlike other
voting methods the world uses. I posted programmers links,
none of which, the list manager has so far redeemed.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Richard Lung.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 25/03/2024 17:18, Michael Garman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">Much of the opposition to STV came from
the fact that it was electing — shudder! black people
and even communists — in a political climate where those
were seen as two of the worst traits a politician could
have. That, more than non-monotonicity, was what did it
in in NYC and elsewhere. I don’t find “reactionaries
won’t like it” to be a convincing argument against
progress. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Mar 25, 2024
at 6:08 PM Closed Limelike Curves <<a
href="mailto:closed.limelike.curves@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">closed.limelike.curves@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">I'm all for convincing people
of the need for reform first and foremost
and then convincing them of specific methods
later. Now, you could argue that certain
reforms would turn the public off the idea
of structural change once and for all, and
I'd take those concerns seriously.</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I don't think convincing people the current
system is bad is very helpful unless you have
a better alternative. People tend to flail
about and pick the first system they think of
or hear about—like IRV—and sometimes even pick
a disastrous system like Borda. After a state
or city picks a new system, they usually stick
with it for decades out of pure inertia,
meaning it locks us out of systems that
actually improve the election's results. If
nothing else, promoting these systems wastes
time and effort that could be better-spent
elsewhere.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It's also easier to argue for a better
policy than a worse one. If reform movements
didn't have so many problems with
Nobel-laureate economists and political
scientists writing newspaper articles and
papers about IRV not working that well, and
didn't have major disasters like Alaska's 2022
election to deal with, things would probably
be an easier sell.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It's worth noting we have a case study of
this. During the Progressive Era in the 1910s,
lots of US cities adopted new voting systems,
typically STV. These rules survived only a few
decades before repeal. Most famously, in New
York, STV caused so many monotonicity failures
that the city decided to kill the only
large-scale proportional representation system
in the United States after officials derided
it for being a lottery.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It's taken 100 years for the electoral
reform movement to recover and get a second
chance. I don't want to wait another 100 years
for a reform that might actually stick this
time.</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Mar 24,
2024 at 4:12 PM Michael Garman <<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">> Note that I'm not asking if
you think the fool me twice problem is<br>
likely to happen with IRV. Just whether it's
reasonable for someone who<br>
thinks enacting a (to his mind) flawed method
can cause a backlash, to<br>
not go for that method.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For sure. It's a reasonable argument.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think the principal consideration to
bear in mind is where the opposition is
coming from and what their arguments are. If
I were an activist in a community where the
prevailing opinion was that reform was
necessary, I'd be all for having a debate
about the merits of different methods and
the relative logistical complications they
might pose.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My concern right now is that most people
aren't open to <i>any</i> reform, and if
the public-facing image they see is a reform
movement that can't even agree on a measure
to push, they'll be even more skeptical. Not
that we can't or shouldn't have these
debates, of course. But I think the Seattle
2022 example -- where the IRV supporters
were at fault! -- is exactly the opposite of
what we want to happen. Overall support for
the first part of the question -- the one
that was essentially "should we scrap FPP?"
was way lower than it would have been if
there hadn't been confusion over competing
proposals and the impression of a fractured
reform community.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm all for convincing people of the need
for reform first and foremost and then
convincing them of specific methods later.
Now, you could argue that certain reforms
would turn the public off the idea of
structural change once and for all, and I'd
take those concerns seriously.</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Mar
24, 2024 at 8:07 PM Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<<a href="mailto:km_elmet@t-online.de"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">km_elmet@t-online.de</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On
2024-03-20 09:57, Michael Garman wrote:<br>
> To be clear, I am by no means a
believer that IRV is the only reform <br>
> worth pursuing, or that it’s anywhere
close to the perfect system.<br>
> <br>
> Where Michael and I disagree is on the
role of pragmatism. I believe <br>
> that any time an alternative to
plurality voting is on the ballot, <br>
> voters should support it. I think the
folks in Eugene, Oregon, should <br>
> vote yes on STAR. I think more places
should try out approval. Beyond <br>
> those three, I read this list because I
enjoy learning about completely <br>
> new and different systems that would be
fascinating to see in practice <br>
> somewhere one day. But in a place where
citizens are asked for an up or <br>
> down vote on IRV vs. FPTP, I don’t see
how you can defend voting for the <br>
> worst possible system because the
proposed reform isn’t exactly what <br>
> you’d like.<br>
<br>
What do you think about the following
reasoning? Call it the "fool me <br>
twice" problem.<br>
<br>
Suppose that a jurisdiction is considering
switching from FPTP to Borda. <br>
The main organization is heavily marketing
Borda as the one ranked <br>
voting system, equating the ranked ballot
format to Borda, the method.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, an organization promoting MDDA
(majority defeat <br>
disqualification approval) is slowly
growing. Someone (call him John) <br>
favors MDDA and thinks that due to Borda's
clone problem, it will <br>
quickly be repealed. Then, he reasons, the
jurisdiction will think that <br>
ranking equals Borda, so that when some
other ranked method is proposed <br>
(MDDA, say), they will remember the failure
of Borda that led to its <br>
repeal and say "no; fool me twice, shame on
me".<br>
<br>
Suppose for the sake of argument that there
is a considerable chance <br>
that Borda would be repealed if it were
enacted, and a lesser chance <br>
that MDDA would. Is then John in the right
to withhold his support for <br>
Borda? Would it be right for the MDDA
organization to try to counter the <br>
Borda organization's marketing by saying
more ranked methods exist, even <br>
if doing so reduces the chance that Borda is
enacted?<br>
<br>
Note that I'm not asking if you think the
fool me twice problem is <br>
likely to happen with IRV. Just whether it's
reasonable for someone who <br>
thinks enacting a (to his mind) flawed
method can cause a backlash, to <br>
not go for that method.<br>
<br>
-km<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
----</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a
href="https://electorama.com/em"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://electorama.com/em</a>
for list info<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>