<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">PSC is <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_for_solid_coalitions">proportionality
for solid coalitions</a>.</blockquote>
<br>
That link is to a rubbish page.<br>
<br>
There is a proper criterion called Droop Proportionality for Solid
coalitions. Douglas Woodall from 1994:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">The
most important single property of STV is what I call the<span> </span><i>Droop
proportionality criterion</i><span> </span>or<span> </span><i>DPC</i>.
Recall that if<span> </span><i>v</i><span> </span>votes are
cast in an election to fill<span> </span><i>s</i><span> </span>seats,
then the quantity<span> </span><i>v</i>/(<i>s</i><span> </span>+
1) is called the<span> </span><i>Droop quota</i>.</p>
<ul
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
<li><b>DPC.</b><span> </span>If, for some whole numbers<span> </span><i>k</i><span> </span>and<span> </span><i>m</i><span> </span>satisfying
0 <<span> </span><i>k</i><span> </span><=<span> </span><i>m</i>,
more than<span> </span><i>k</i><span> </span>Droop quotas of
voters put the same<span> </span><i>m</i><span> </span>candidates
(not necessarily in the same order) as the top<span> </span><i>m</i><span> </span>candidates
in their preference listings, then at least<span> </span><i>k</i><span> </span>of
those<span> </span><i>m</i><span> </span>candidates should
be elected. (In the event of a tie, this should be
interpreted as saying that every outcome that is chosen with
non-zero probability should include at least<span> </span><i>k</i><span> </span>of
these<span> </span><i>m</i><span> </span>candidates.)</li>
</ul>
<p
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">In
statements of properties, the word "should" indicates that the
property says that something should happen, not necessarily
that I personally agree. However, in this case I certainly do:
DPC seems to me to be a<span> </span><i>sine qua non</i><span> </span>for
a fair election rule. I suggest that any system that satisfies
DPC deserves to be called a<span> </span><i>quota-preferential</i><span> </span>system
and to be regarded as a system of proportional representation
(within each constituency)-an STV-lookalike. Conversely, I
assume that no member of the Electoral Reform Society will be
satisfied with anything that does not satisfy DPC.</p>
<p
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">The
property to which DPC reduces in a single-seat election should
hold (as a consequence of DPC) even in a multi-seat election,
and it deserves a special name.</p>
<ul
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
<li><b>Majority.</b><span> </span>If more than half the voters
put the same set of candidates (not necessarily in the same
order) at the top of their preference listings, then at
least one of those candidates should be elected.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/voting-matters/ISSUE3/P5.HTM">http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/voting-matters/ISSUE3/P5.HTM</a><br>
<br>
Later he was calling that single-winner version "Majority for
Solid Coalitions", presumably because others were using "Majority"
to mean Majority for a Single Candidate and it's useful to have
something short that means that.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/07/2024 7:00 am, Closed Limelike
Curves wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+euzPjSe+hi8keSLxrAsXSUQDZzA7COTzRwhd3O=_ZfFAd4jQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">PSC is <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_for_solid_coalitions"
moz-do-not-send="true">proportionality for solid coalitions</a>.</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at
11:07 AM Richard, the VoteFair guy <<a
href="mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">electionmethods@votefair.org</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
7/15/2024 3:20 PM, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:<br>
> Richard, I'd suggest taking a look at the newest<br>
> version of Wikipedia's PSC article (and the<br>
> citations in there); ...<br>
<br>
I don't recognize the PSC acronym.<br>
<br>
And I can't find it in Wikipedia's PSC list:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSC" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSC</a><br>
<br>
Also, I suggest changing the email "subject" to the full name
of <br>
whatever PSC is.<br>
<br>
Richard Fobes<br>
<br>
<br>
On 7/15/2024 3:20 PM, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:<br>
> Richard, I'd suggest taking a look at the newest version
of Wikipedia's <br>
> PSC article (and the citations in there); nonpartisan PR
algorithms <br>
> other than STV are a very new field of research, and
we're just barely <br>
> starting to study what algorithms satisfy what
proportionality axioms.<br>
> <br>
> STV does try to put together a coalition, but this
involves a very basic <br>
> greedy search for cohesive/solid coalitions that support
a single group <br>
> of candidates. e.g. say a Hispanic Republican's
preferences are <br>
> something like "vote for a Hispanic Republican, then
non-Hispanic <br>
> Republicans, then a Hispanic Democrat"; whereas others
Hispanic <br>
> Republicans care more about ethnicity than about party.
In this <br>
> situation, there's no solid coalition for Hispanics /or/
Republicans, so <br>
> it's very prone to underrepresent one of these groups.
IIRC the EVC's <br>
> proposal for a proportional STAR algorithm works on
basically the same <br>
> principle, as does anything that assigns seats
sequentially/greedily, <br>
> which is why I tend to dislike them; whereas PAV is
optimization-based, <br>
> so it tends to find better apportionments across
cross-cutting <br>
> coalitions. I think Schulze STV also satisfies similar
properties (but <br>
> only locally, because global optimization across
committees requires <br>
> voters to give candidates ratings).<br>
> <br>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 10:22 AM Richard, the VoteFair
guy <br>
> <<a href="mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">electionmethods@votefair.org</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">electionmethods@votefair.org</a>>>
wrote:<br>
> <br>
> On 7/13/2024 5:39 PM, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:<br>
> > ... my guess is the effect of STV is probably
going to be limited<br>
> > compared to other methods, because STV is only
proportional for<br>
> solid<br>
> > coalitions, i.e. voting blocs moving in
perfect lockstep with each<br>
> > other, and only if they exceed a full quota.
...<br>
> <br>
> When using STV, coalitions don't need to be "solid."<br>
> <br>
> STV calculations automatically identify de-facto
"coalitions." Each<br>
> candidate can be thought of as a de-facto coalition.<br>
> <br>
> One way to think of this concept is that STV gives
any coalition a<br>
> "second try" when filling the second seat, and a
"third try" when<br>
> filling the third seat.<br>
> <br>
> In contrast, IRV provides only "one try" for a
coalition to elect their<br>
> candidate. So for IRV, a "solid" coalition voting
with the same tactic<br>
> does have an advantage compared to a loose
(non-solid) coalition.<br>
> <br>
> I'm not saying STV is better than PAV. I'm saying
this specific<br>
> criticism of STV -- thinking that a coalition must be
"solid" -- is not<br>
> a valid reason to dismiss STV.<br>
> <br>
> Richard Fobes<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On 7/13/2024 5:39 PM, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:<br>
> > Ahh, yeah, any PR method will outperform
winner-take-all on this<br>
> metric.<br>
> > If cities are using STV for their city
councils, that might imply<br>
> > single-winner IRV actively reduces minority
representation.<br>
> ><br>
> > That said, my guess is the effect of STV is
probably going to be<br>
> limited<br>
> > compared to other methods, because STV is only
proportional for<br>
> solid<br>
> > coalitions, i.e. voting blocs moving in perfect
lockstep with each<br>
> > other, and only if they exceed a full quota.
So, for example, if<br>
> ethnic<br>
> > minorities tend to vote for a mix of white and
minority<br>
> candidates, or<br>
> > if they're split across party lines (e.g.
Hispanics only go about<br>
> 60-40<br>
> > for Democrats), this will tend to break up and
dilute their<br>
> interests.<br>
> > It's not enough to have a quota of Hispanics
who rate Hispanic<br>
> > Republicans and Hispanic Democrats highly; you
need to have a<br>
> full quota<br>
> > rank /either/ a Hispanic Republican or a
Hispanic Democrat at the<br>
> top of<br>
> > their ballots. The effect is the same as
center-squeeze, where<br>
> your vote<br>
> > gets "stuck" with a weak candidate who
nevertheless has enough first<br>
> > preferences to stay in the race for several
rounds. By the time this<br>
> > candidate is eliminated, the more-electable
candidates with fewer<br>
> first<br>
> > preferences have been defeated.<br>
> ><br>
> > But from what I can tell, this is much trickier
to resolve than<br>
> > center-squeeze; proportional Condorcet methods
don't seem to have<br>
> any<br>
> > guarantees on how out-of-whack a coalition can
get, although I think<br>
> > Schulze STV has a nice local stability
property.<br>
> ><br>
> > Most ethnic minorities aren’t solid coalitions,
although<br>
> > African-Americans happen to be so
overwhelmingly Democratic they<br>
> might<br>
> > act like one. Something like PAV that
approximately satisfies the<br>
> core<br>
> > property should do better at giving minority
voters more<br>
> representation.<br>
> ><br>
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 8:40 PM Richard, the
VoteFair guy<br>
> > <<a
href="mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">electionmethods@votefair.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">electionmethods@votefair.org</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">electionmethods@votefair.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">electionmethods@votefair.org</a>>>>
wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > On 7/11/2024 10:47 AM, Closed Limelike
Curves wrote:<br>
> > > ... given there's no theoretical
basis to think IRV would<br>
> affect<br>
> > > city council and mayoral seats
differently. ...<br>
> ><br>
> > In the new Portland elections, "ranked
choice voting" for<br>
> city-council<br>
> > seats is STV (the Single Transferable Vote)
with three seats per<br>
> > district, whereas "ranked choice voting"
for Portland mayor is<br>
> > single-winner IRV (instant-runoff voting).<br>
> ><br>
> > Of course Portland's
three-seats-per-district STV city-council<br>
> > elections<br>
> > are going to yield more gender and racial
diversity compared to<br>
> > single-winner IRV for electing Portland's
mayor.<br>
> ><br>
> > Richard Fobes<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On 7/11/2024 10:47 AM, Closed Limelike
Curves wrote:<br>
> > > I'm going to go ahead and say I'm
skeptical either of these<br>
> > results will<br>
> > > replicate, given there's no
theoretical basis to think IRV<br>
> > would affect<br>
> > > city council and mayoral seats
differently. My guess is<br>
> both results<br>
> > > would disappear if you used a
hierarchical/partial pooling<br>
> model to<br>
> > > reduce the noise in the estimates.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 10:45 AM
Michael Garman<br>
> > > <<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a><br>
> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a><br>
> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>>><br>
> > <mailto:<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a><br>
> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a><br>
> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>>>>><br>
> > > wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > And that’s bad! But it doesn’t
negate the point I made. In<br>
> > council<br>
> > > races it helps. And that’s good!<br>
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 1:44 PM
Closed Limelike Curves<br>
> > > <<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><br>
> <mailto:<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>><br>
> > <mailto:<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><br>
> <mailto:<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>>><br>
> > > <mailto:<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><br>
> <mailto:<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>><br>
> > <mailto:<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><br>
> <mailto:<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>
> > ><br>
> > > > In mayoral elections,
RCV seems to *decrease*<br>
> gender and<br>
> > > racial/ethnic diversity.<br>
> > > Sounds substantial!<br>
> > ><br>
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at
10:28 AM Michael Garman<br>
> > > <<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a><br>
> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a><br>
> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>>><br>
> > > <mailto:<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a><br>
> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a><br>
> <mailto:<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>
> > ><br>
> > > > In city council
elections, RCV has a small but<br>
> > positive<br>
> > > effect on racial/ethnic
diversity<br>
> > > Sounds substantial!<br>
> > ><br>
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at
1:26 PM Closed<br>
> Limelike Curves<br>
> > > <<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><br>
> <mailto:<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>><br>
> > <mailto:<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><br>
> <mailto:<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>>><br>
> > > <mailto:<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><br>
> <mailto:<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>><br>
> > <mailto:<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><br>
> <mailto:<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>
> > ><br>
> > > Empirically, IRV
adoption has no substantial<br>
> > effects on<br>
> > > diversity<br>
> > ><br>
> > <br>
> <<a
href="https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/rcv-impact-on-candidate-entry-and-representation/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/rcv-impact-on-candidate-entry-and-representation/</a>
<<a
href="https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/rcv-impact-on-candidate-entry-and-representation/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/rcv-impact-on-candidate-entry-and-representation/</a>>
<<a
href="https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/rcv-impact-on-candidate-entry-and-representation/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/rcv-impact-on-candidate-entry-and-representation/</a>
<<a
href="https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/rcv-impact-on-candidate-entry-and-representation/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/rcv-impact-on-candidate-entry-and-representation/</a>>>>.
In theory, I'd expect a small decrease in representation for
minorities, because people of color tend to have higher rates
of spoiled ballots, so IRV should hit them the hardest.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > In general, the
theoretical advantages of IRV<br>
> > over FPP<br>
> > > are outweighed by its
practical costs (spoiled<br>
> > ballots,<br>
> > > lower trust in
elections, cost, etc.).<br>
> > > ----<br>
> > > Election-Methods
mailing list - see<br>
> > > <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>
<<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>><br>
> <<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>
<<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>>><br>
> > <<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>
<<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>><br>
> <<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>
<<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>>>><br>
> > > for list info<br>
> > ><br>
> > ----<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><br>
> <<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>><br>
> > <<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>
<<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<br>
> list info<br>
> ><br>
> ----<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><br>
> <<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>
> <br>
----<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>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>