"I happen to agree with Wells’s assessment of the merits of STV, but I wouldn’t dare to claim that I know beyond doubt that it’s beyond a shadow of doubt the perfect way to vote — or that one exists." Neither does Wells. It's like due process (or scientific law), something beyond reasonable doubt. Not to say what we have ample reason to believe is true, and ample reason to believe non-transferable voting is defective, is the more irresponsible. Look at social choice theory with 70 years of skepticism and its vacuous verdicts that there is no perfect election system -- as if anyone thought there was. Regardfs, Richard Lung.

>> Not to say what we have ample reason to believe is true, and ample reason to believe non transferable voting is defective, is the more irresponsible. I don't dispute this. >> which would require a knowledge of true election method But what in the name of God do you mean by this? What is a "true" election method? On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 9:19 PM Richard Lung <voting@ukscientists.com> wrote: > "I happen to agree with Wells’s assessment of the merits of STV, but I > wouldn’t dare to claim that I know beyond doubt that it’s beyond a > shadow of doubt the perfect way to vote — or that one exists." > > Neither does Wells. It's like due process (or scientific law), something > beyond reasonable doubt. Not to say what we have ample reason to believe > is true, and ample reason to believe non-transferable voting is > defective, is the more irresponsible. > > Look at social choice theory with 70 years of skepticism and its vacuous > verdicts that there is no perfect election system -- as if anyone > thought there was. > > Regardfs, > > Richard Lung. > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list > info >