<!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 !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"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">I
seem to have lost the e-mail criticising Wiki articles root and
branch. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">A
theorem is used to assert that IRV must have an element of
tactical voting.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">But
that is no more than to say that an ordinal count in single
districts must have
inaccuracies, at least manifest (and exploitable) in theory.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">The
main points have been missed by theorem pedantry.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">Where
to start?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">IRV
has an analogous fault to party lists. It manufactures a
majority, which is not
necessarily the democratic majority. It requires a transferable
vote across party
lines, to establish that fact. This of course is not possible
with a dogmatic
party list vote, in large districts, or an unfree preference
vote that does not
allow the election of more than one candidate, thus losing
probably most of the
first preferences, as wasted votes, unlike with STV in
multi-member
constituencies.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">STV
would give something like representation of all the people, not
just a majority
of them.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">Britain</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">
and 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"">
have ignored the
simple truth of John Stuart Mill, which came home to roost, when
Lani Guinier
spoke of The Tyranny of The Majority. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">That
is the first limitation of Anglo-American “democracy” by
supposition.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">The
second limitation is to give a special place to single member
constituencies, which
actually has no reasonable justification.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">To
use the jargon of Relativity, there is no special reference
frame, by which single
districts can be distinguished from multiple seat districts.
Whereas “wasted votes”
and “tactical/strategic voting” prove that choice is relative,
like motion.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">It
is thought otherwise because conventional STV only applies to
multi-member constituencies.
IRV is tolerated as a second-best for single-member elections.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">But
it is possible to use the same rational count (a “binomial”
count, that is both
a rational election count and a rational exclusion count) for
both single and multiple
districts, ending any necessary distinction between them.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">Moreover
this removes the irritant, the mote-in-your eye criticism
against STV as “non-monotonic”
because binomial STV is a rational exclusion count as well as a
rational election
count.</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 class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold""><br>
</span></p>
</body>
</html>