<div dir="auto">Sorry, I forgot to add that with a 500-seat parliament, elected at-large, even d’Hondt has a very low requirement for a seat:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Instead of 1/7 of one percent, it’s 1/5 of one percent. Not problematically high. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I prefer SL because of its near-perfect unbias, but it could be argued that, for the systematic-procedures usually used to define & do the allocations, d’Hondt’s looks simpler & more intuitive.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">…though by the trial-&-error methods by which the methods were historically defined for apportionment here, SL’s (Webster’s) rounding to the nearest integer is more natural & intuitive than DH’s (Jefferson’s) rounding down.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I prefer SL’s unbias, unless a population insist on d’Hondt’s simpler more intuitive systematic-procedure.</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 21:49 Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div dir="auto">I should add that there’s no reason for concern that your vote will be wasted in Party-PR, if the party you vote for doesn’t get enough votes for a seat.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That’s because:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">With 500 seats elected at-large in Sainte-Lague, the requirement for a seat is only about 1/7 of one percent.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Suppose that there are 10 progressive parties that split the progressive vote into 10 equal parts.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">…& that none of them get enough votes for a seat.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Alright, 1/7 of one percent, times 10 = 1/70 of the vote. … = about 1.43% of the vote.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So, by not voting for a guaranteed winnable umbrella ☂ party, the progressives have only wasted, & denied the umbrella party 1.4% of the vote. … not enough to likely affect the parliamentary balance-of-power.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">STV requires many small districts, which, like its complicated count, & its balloting-requirements, is an avoidable complication & implementation-problem.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Petty-PR doesn’t need any districting. At-large. Quick, easy, simple.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">What, people might want to elect someone local? They still can!!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Any quota-size local group group can elect a local candidate of their choice if they want to.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"> …or not!!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It’s their choice. as it should be. We shouldn’t be forced to elect someone local. Democracy doesn’t coerce.</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 21:24 Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">One reason for my voting 1st is to demonstrate what I mean by the voting-instructions:<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Condorcet candidate ranking:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jill Stein</div><div dir="auto">Claudia de la Cruz</div><div dir="auto">Cornell West</div><div dir="auto">Marianne Williamson </div><div dir="auto">Peter Sonsky</div><div dir="auto">————approval-line———-</div><div dir="auto">================</div><div dir="auto">STV & RCV ranking:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">(You could write separate rankings for STV & RCV if you wish. I’m voting the same ranking for both.)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jill Stein</div><div dir="auto">Claudia de la Cruz</div><div dir="auto">Cornell West</div><div dir="auto">Marianne Williamson </div><div dir="auto">Peter Sonsky</div><div dir="auto">———-approval-line———-</div><div dir="auto">RFK Jr</div><div dir="auto">Joe Biden</div><div dir="auto">Chase Oliver</div><div dir="auto">=============</div><div dir="auto">Party PR vote:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Green Party</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">==========</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">A few comments:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In the Condorcet ballot, I defensively-truncated, ranking only those whom I approve…in order to get the benefit of RC(wv)’s Minimal-Defense compliance.</div><div dir="auto">————</div><div dir="auto">Of course in RCV there’s no reason to not rank everyone. In fact there are two reason why I ranked all:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">1. Of course the worst is a bit worse than the 2nd-worst, & there’s no reason to not express that.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">2. But my main reason, the important reason, is that people who really want to maximally help Lesser-Evil beat Greater-Evil wii have no reason to not sincerely rank progressives (if they prefer them) over Lesser-Evil…if progressives have *assured & promised* them that they’ll rank Lesser-Evil over Greater-Evil.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Then those voters will know that, even if all the progressive candidates get eliminated, their vote will end up with Lesser-Evil, & so they’re still maximally voting against Greater-Evil. That’s my reason for ranking all in RCV.</div><div dir="auto">————-</div><div dir="auto"> So that it won’t seem like I’m choosing to report (especially at other websites)!the STV result that I like better, I should say that I’ll be reporting the fractional STV result, because it’s unarbitrary.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As for Droop vs Hare, I like Hare if it’s more unbiased, but I like Droop if it assigns more seats by quota, requiring less elimination.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Because anyone with over 1/(S+1) of the votes will get a seat anyway, there doesn’t seem to be a compelling reason to immediately give it to hir by quota…& so I guess I prefer the Hare quota for STV, due to its better unbias.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It goes without saying that an STV result should be determined by an advocate & specialist of STV.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Justification for including Party-PR:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I, too, like STV’s more expressive ballot, but I claim that Party-PR’s dramatically simpler & easier balloting & count, with no need for any new balloting-equipment or count-software, & its easy kitchen-table hand-calculator or pencil-paper allocation, can be very important.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">…the reason why nearly all PR countries use Party-PR?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>