<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
It's a weird and very undemocratic feature of the US system that
getting ballot access is very very difficult, and that it's
possible for candidates for the office of President of the whole
US to be on the ballot in some states but not others.<br>
<br>
If the establishment Democrats and their media friends don't like
the split-vote feature of their system, then they should
campaign/lobby/vote/whatever to fix it.<br>
<br>
The UK has a parliamentary system with the 650 members of the
House of Commons elected by FPP in single-member districts. The
average number of candidates per seat in the most recent general
election was nearly 7.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><font size="4"><span
style="color: rgb(32, 33, 34); font-family: sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">There
were 4515 candidates standing, which constitutes a record
number, with a mean of 6.95 candidates per constituency. No
seat had fewer than five people contesting it;<span> </span></span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishi_Sunak"
title="Rishi Sunak"
style="text-decoration: none; color: var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-radius: 2px; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-family: sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;">Rishi
Sunak</a><span
style="color: rgb(32, 33, 34); font-family: sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">'s<span> </span></span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_and_Northallerton"
class="mw-redirect" title="Richmond and Northallerton"
style="text-decoration: none; color: var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-radius: 2px; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-family: sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;">Richmond
and Northallerton</a><span
style="color: rgb(32, 33, 34); font-family: sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;"><span> </span>seat
had the most candidates, with thirteen.</span></font><sup
id="cite_ref-376" class="reference"
style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-size: 12.8px; color: rgb(32, 33, 34); font-family: sans-serif; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#cite_note-376"
style="text-decoration: none; color: var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: none; border-radius: 2px; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[354]</a></sup></blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#See_also">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#See_also</a><br>
<br>
Probably a lot of votes were involuntarily wasted and the
Conservative Party (the ruling party that was defeated by the
Labour Party) was stung more by the split-vote problem than was
Labour. According to the wikipedia article the Conservative Party
got 23.7% of the vote and another (much newer) right-wing party
"Reform UK" got 14.3%.<br>
<br>
This would have been a big factor in the extreme
disproportionality of the result, but at least the winning party
was the one that got more votes than any other.<br>
<br>
The Labour Party won 63.2% of the seats with 33.7% of the vote. I
am sure that the result would have been less disproportional if
Hare had been used, at that turnout (that was the lowest in a long
time) would have been higher.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><font size="4"><span
style="color: rgb(32, 33, 34); font-family: sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">Smaller
parties took a record 42.6 per cent of the vote in the
election, in part due to anti-Conservative<span> </span></span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting"
class="mw-redirect" title="Tactical voting"
style="text-decoration: none; color: var(--color-progressive,#36c); background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-radius: 2px; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-family: sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;">tactical
voting</a><span
style="color: rgb(32, 33, 34); font-family: sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">.</span></font></blockquote>
<br>
What the last part refers to is that in some seats Labour had no
chance of winning, so voters whose favourite might have been
Labour voted for a third party that had some chance of defeating
the Conservative.<br>
<br>
The upside of this debacle is that it has apparently increased
support for some sort of PR. I think the version Labour likes is
some not-so-great fixed Party List system with some apportionment
algorithm that favours large parties (in comparison to other PR
systems).<br>
<br>
Chris B.<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/07/2024 3:04 am, Richard, the
VoteFair guy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3626567d-e2cd-484a-bb1e-e8889423c285@votefair.org">On
7/18/2024 10:06 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
<br>
> Would those be the "Gore suckers" who only lost the
presidency by 537
<br>
> votes because roughly 97,000 voted Green?
<br>
<br>
Michael, thank you for this reply to Michael's comment (copied
below). It's much better worded than what came to my mind.
<br>
<br>
My view is that there is no such thing as a "spoiler candidate."
<br>
<br>
Instead it's called "vote splitting." It's a flaw in some
vote-counting methods. It's not a flaw in how voters vote. And
it's not a flaw in who chooses to enter or exit the contest.
<br>
<br>
Richard Fobes
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 7/18/2024 10:06 AM, Michael Garman wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">If Biden loses Rhode Island, we'll have
far bigger problems to worry about than arguing about electoral
reform on the internet.
<br>
<br>
Would those be the "Gore suckers" who only lost the presidency
by 537 votes because roughly 97,000 voted Green?
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:04 PM Michael Ossipoff
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com">email9648742@gmail.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com"><mailto:email9648742@gmail.com></a>> wrote:
<br>
<br>
How would I know what will happen in your state, whatever
it is.
<br>
<br>
Maybe you’ll succeed there, or maybe you’ll just split the
vote & lose.
<br>
<br>
But even if Biden wins *in your state* that doesn’t mean you
& your
<br>
state aren’t splitting the non-Trump vote & giving the
overall win
<br>
to Trump.
<br>
<br>
But suit yourself.
<br>
<br>
Don’t be so overconfident. It could be a repeat of the Gore
suckers
<br>
in 2000.
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 05:31 Michael Garman
<br>
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us"><mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us></a>> wrote:
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Mmm yes I’m going to be the one “splitting the vote”
when Biden
<br>
wins my state in a landslide, genius.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:22 AM Michael Ossipoff
<br>
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com">email9648742@gmail.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com"><mailto:email9648742@gmail.com></a>> wrote:
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sorry, I can’t control your voting in November.
<br>
<br>
You’re going to vote for Biden—or obediently for
whomever
<br>
the DNC says.
<br>
<br>
Trump will win because you insist on splitting the
vote.
<br>
<br>
…& when Trump wins, don’t forget to congratulate
yourself
<br>
for achieving that by your dishonest hold-your-nose
sucker
<br>
voting.
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 02:01 Michael Garman
<br>
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us"><mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us></a>>
wrote:
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
And how do you intend to make that happen?
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 4:43 AM Michael Ossipoff
<br>
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com">email9648742@gmail.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com"><mailto:email9648742@gmail.com></a>>
<br>
wrote:
<br>
<br>
My magic plan is honest voting.
<br>
<br>
Not splitting the non-Trump between honest
voters &
<br>
giveaway-sucker voters.
<br>
<br>
Not having a high percentage of us throw
their vote
<br>
away on someone none of us want.
<br>
<br>
Do you see the lunacy of most of the voters
holding
<br>
their nose & voting for someone that
none of us want?
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 01:15 Michael Garman
<br>
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us"><mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us></a>> wrote:
<br>
<br>
<br>
What’s your magic plan to make a third
party
<br>
candidate win in 2024? A plan that
doesn’t rely
<br>
on unrepresentative Internet alternative
method
<br>
polls.
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:43 AM Michael
Ossipoff
<br>
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com">email9648742@gmail.com</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com"><mailto:email9648742@gmail.com></a>> wrote:
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 22:16 John T
Whelan
<br>
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:john.whelan@astro.rit.edu">john.whelan@astro.rit.edu</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:john.whelan@astro.rit.edu"><mailto:john.whelan@astro.rit.edu></a>> wrote:
<br>
<br>
Richard gets at the fundamental
problem
<br>
with polls like this: anyone
willing to
<br>
run for President as a third
party
<br>
candidate in the current
political
<br>
climate under the current
electoral
<br>
system has shown a lack of
judgement and
<br>
responsibility which makes them
an
<br>
unacceptable choice. <br>
<br>
No, it just means they aren’t
lesser-evil
<br>
suckers.
<br>
<br>
The-Two-Choices are for the suckers
who
<br>
believe whatever ther TV tells them
<br>
<br>
e.g. the bizarre looney belief that
two
<br>
candidates & parties that none
of us want
<br>
could be The-Two-Choices.
<br>
<br>
Yes, it would be better to have a
better
<br>
electoral system. That’s why we’re
all here.
<br>
<br>
But that doesn’t mean we have to
continue to
<br>
be such complete suckers now.
<br>
<br>
Michael Ossipoff
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
----
<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for
list info
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>