<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<p>That may be so. As a matter of fact, it is possible to use STV in
single member constituencies, tho not of course possible to have
PR in single member constituencies. How it can work, very
basically, is if the STV comprises both an election count and an
exclusion count. Then the election is determined by over-all keep
values (with the exclusion count inverted for a second-opinion
election count.) So called first order Binomial STV is thereby
shown to be a consistnt system. But any single member system is,
as Robert Newland said, "only half a democracy."</p>
<p>We need to get away from single elections. The string of US
presidents, keeping the futile Vietnam war going (as portrayed in
the Spielberg film, The Post) and other cases like the second Iraq
War, proves the point that political monarchies or monopolies of
power are to be avoided. The president should be a chairman of a
generously proportionally elected cabinet.</p>
<p>Regards, </p>
<p>Richard Lung.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
On 06/04/2024 12:51, James Gilmour wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre-wrap; display: block; width: 98vw;">> I don't think any "open-ended" question could give clear and
> unambiguous results. For that you need two separate polls: one on
> election methods for single-winner elections; the other, separate
> poll, on election methods for multi-winner elections. James Gilmour
>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Election-Methods
>> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com">mailto:election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com</a>] On Behalf Of
>> Joshua Boehme Sent: 05 April 2024 22:05 To: 'EM'
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com"><election-methods@lists.electorama.com></a> Subject: Re: [EM] Poll on
>> voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections
>>
>>
>> I had a similar thought. If the question is more open-ended, maybe
>> adding "(if applicable)" to the proportional representation option
>> would make it clearer. (My thought process here is that one of the
>> goals of this poll is to summarize current thinking for
>> *non*-experts, so extra little nudges of explanation can help.)
>>
>>
>> On 4/5/24 16:14, James Gilmour wrote:
>>> There's some muddled thinking here.
>>>
>>> If you are electing a president or a mayor, you will use a
>>> single-winner election method.
>>>
>>> If you are electing a "representative assembly" like a parliament
>>> or town council, you would use (should use) a multi-
>> winner election method. Only be using a multi-winner method can
>> you begin to ensure that the elected assembly is properly
>> representative of those who voted.
>>>
>>> So before you hold your "Poll on voting systems", you must define
>>> the purpose of the election for which the voting
>> system is to be used.
>>>
>>> James Gilmour Edinburgh, Scotland
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Election-Methods
>>>> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com">mailto:election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com</a>] On
>>>> Behalf Of Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: 05 April 2024 18:55 To:
>>>> Filip Ejlak <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tersander@gmail.com"><tersander@gmail.com></a>; EM
>>>> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com"><election-methods@lists.electorama.com></a> Subject: Re: [EM] Poll
>>>> on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming
>>>> enactment-elections
>>>>
>>>> On 2024-04-05 16:03, Filip Ejlak wrote:
>>>>> First thing: it's surprising how all the options that have
>>>>> been mentioned are single-winner methods, despite the poll
>>>>> subject not being worded in such a restrictive way. Are
>>>>> multi-winner options allowed as well, or should this be a
>>>>> different poll? Because it needs to be said that _every
>>>>> legislative election needs proportional representation_. I
>>>>> guess any single-winner method, no matter how good, will be
>>>>> bad in comparison with a PR method. So if multi-winner
>>>>> options were allowed in the poll, I would nominate *STV *(a
>>>>> Condorcet-compliant variant would be better if there was any
>>>>> polynomial one with good recognition; an optional indirect
>>>>> element - like GVT, but strongly improved - would also be
>>>>> nice).
>>>>>
>>>>> And speaking of single-winner methods, in my opinion
>>>>> *Woodall* and *Benham* seem to be the best, at least among
>>>>> the well-known ones. While Woodall (especially Schwartz
>>>>> Woodall) is perhaps marginally better, Benham is so easy to
>>>>> explain (and it's a very obvious/natural way to make IRV
>>>>> actually good) that it should be seriously considered by
>>>>> voting reform campaigners. So I'd like to nominate these
>>>>> two.
>>>>
>>>> I agree: if the poll is primarily meant to be about
>>>> single-winner methods, it would still be useful to have a "use
>>>> multiwinner PR instead" option, to see how well it would do
>>>> compared to the single-winner methods.
>>>>
>>>> I'd also suggest the following methods:
>>>>
>>>> Majority Judgement (as a category; includes usual judgement
>>>> etc.) Approval with manual runoff (since it has seen actual
>>>> use) Copeland//Borda (proposed by Equal Vote)
>>>>
>>>> and to echo Joshua Boehme, I'd also like to know what it's a
>>>> poll of: the theoretically best method, the one with best
>>>> chance of passing a reform effort, most bang for the buck, or
>>>> something else?
>>>>
>>>> On an aside, STV with ranked pairs elimination is not too bad
>>>> a polytime Condorcet-reducing STV method IMHO. RP's LIIA
>>>> compliance reduces the chaos you would otherwise get from
>>>> elimination. It tends to have somewhat of a center bias within
>>>> the "clusters" (solid coalitions entitled representation by
>>>> Droop
>> proportionality), but that might not be too bad if it deters
>> extremist kingmaker scenarios.
>>>> (You'd do a ranked pairs election every time you've elected
>>>> someone and eliminated him from the ballots, then eliminate
>>>> from the RP loser up until someone exceeds the quota, then
>>>> elect him, distribute surpluses, and do a new RP election, and
>>>> so on.)
>>>>
>>>> -km
>
> ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a>
> for list info</span>obert Newland said "only half a democracy."<br>
</body>
</html>