<!DOCTYPE html>
<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 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>
    <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">False
        distinction between single and multi-member systems</span></p>
    <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold""> </span></p>
    <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">There
        is no rational reason why single-member constituencies should be
        treated
        separately from multi-member constituencies, as the
        Anglo-American political
        system does.</span></p>
    <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">There
        is the political reason that career politics prefers monopolies.
        Among
        academics, it is a question of whether the politics is put
        before the science of
        political science. A certain American body of that persuasion
        chooses so-called
        approval voting for its election system. As this is essentially
        cumulative
        voting by another name, it is just enough to assert a token
        independence from the
        time honored first past the post, electoral system, without
        emerging from the
        19<sup>th</sup> century with anything approaching electoral
        originality.</span></p>
    <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">However,
        the supposed distinction between single and multi member systems
        rests on the
        fact that only the latter are capable of proportional elections.
        This is true
        but it does not preclude the possibility of election system,
        that consistently
        applies to both single and multi-member systems.</span></p>
    <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">In
        that case, singling-out single-member systems for special
        treatment is just a
        matter of personal preference or prejudice, for monopolistic
        representation, that has neither
        logical justification, nor the justification of democratic
        competition.</span></p>
    <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">A
        crude manifestation of this personal preference or prejudice for
        monopoly is
        the falsifying of the name of Thomas Hare and his system, by
        associating it
        with instant run-off voting (IRV).</span></p>
    <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">This
        is excused by falsely assuming a continuity between IRV and STV.
        But the latter
        is a proportional election, and the former is an eliminative
        count. IRV is hardly
        an election at all, unless some candidate happens to have an
        over-all majority.</span></p>
    <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">Users
        of STV often say as much as that IRV is a second-best to STV for
        single-member
        systems. But they do not claim that conventional STV can be used
        in
        single-member systems.</span></p>
    <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">The
        point is that it is possible to invent an STV system, that can
        be consistently
        used in single-member as well as multi-member systems. I know, I
        have invented
        it! It
        is not misunderstood because it is difficult but because it is
        different, lack
        of familiarity rather than lack of intelligence, being the
        problem.</span></p>
    <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">Regards,</span></p>
    <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">Richard
        Lung.</span></p>
    <p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold""><br>
      </span></p>
  </body>
</html>