Yes, that federal law doesn’t prevent states from using PR to elect their
legislators.

So I suggest that PR be included in state electoral reform
proposal-packages.

But single-winner reform, being a less drastic & fundamental change, is
more feasible sooner.

Enactability soon is very important.

kdbearman@gmail.com wrote:

Electoral reform here is just starting its 2nd try (the 1st was early
20th-century). If it ever starts to take-off, there will probably be
bipartisan federal laws to forbid it in any form anywhere.

On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 20:03 Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:

I don't think any "open-ended" question could give clear and unambiguous results.  For that you need two separate polls: one on
election methods for single-winner elections; the other, separate poll, on election methods for multi-winner elections.
James Gilmour

That may be so. As a matter of fact, it is possible to use STV in single
member constituencies, tho not of course possible to have PR in single
member constituencies. How it can work, very basically, is if the STV
comprises both an election count and an exclusion count. Then the
election is determined by over-all keep values (with the exclusion count
inverted for a second-opinion election count.)  So called first order
Binomial STV is  thereby shown to be a consistnt system. But any single
member system is, as Robert Newland said, "only half a democracy."

We need to get away from single elections. The string of US presidents,
keeping the futile Vietnam war going (as portrayed in the Spielberg
film, The Post) and other cases like the second Iraq War, proves the
point that political monarchies or monopolies of power are to be
avoided. The president should be a chairman of a generously
proportionally elected cabinet.

Regards,

Richard Lung.

On 06/04/2024 12:51, James Gilmour wrote:

election methods for single-winner elections; the other, separate >
poll, on election methods for multi-winner elections. James Gilmour > >

[mailto:election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com] On Behalf Of >>
Joshua Boehme Sent: 05 April 2024 22:05 To: 'EM' >>
election-methods@lists.electorama.com Subject: Re: [EM] Poll on >>
voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections >> >>

non-experts, so extra little nudges of explanation can help.) >> >> >>
On 4/5/24 16:14, James Gilmour wrote: >>> There's some muddled thinking
here. >>> >>> If you are electing a president or a mayor, you will use a

"representative assembly" like a parliament >>> or town council, you
would use (should use) a multi- >> winner election method. Only be using
a multi-winner method can >> you begin to ensure that the elected
assembly is properly >> representative of those who voted. >>> >>> So
before you hold your "Poll on voting systems", you must define >>> the
purpose of the election for which the voting >> system is to be used.

Message----- From: Election-Methods >>>>
[mailto:election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com] On >>>> Behalf Of
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: 05 April 2024 18:55 To: >>>> Filip Ejlak
tersander@gmail.com; EM >>>> election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] Poll >>>> on voting-systems, to inform voters in
upcoming >>>> enactment-elections >>>> >>>> On 2024-04-05 16:03, Filip
Ejlak wrote: >>>>> First thing: it's surprising how all the options that
have >>>>> been mentioned are single-winner methods, despite the poll

multi-winner options allowed as well, or should this be a >>>>>
different poll? Because it needs to be said that every >>>>>
legislative election needs proportional representation. I >>>>> guess
any single-winner method, no matter how good, will be >>>>> bad in
comparison with a PR method. So if multi-winner >>>>> options were
allowed in the poll, I would nominate *STV *(a >>>>> Condorcet-compliant
variant would be better if there was any >>>>> polynomial one with good
recognition; an optional indirect >>>>> element - like GVT, but strongly
improved - would also be >>>>> nice). >>>>> >>>>> And speaking of
single-winner methods, in my opinion >>>>> Woodall and Benham seem
to be the best, at least among >>>>> the well-known ones. While Woodall
(especially Schwartz >>>>> Woodall) is perhaps marginally better, Benham
is so easy to >>>>> explain (and it's a very obvious/natural way to make
IRV >>>>> actually good) that it should be seriously considered by >>>>>
voting reform campaigners. So I'd like to nominate these >>>>> two. >>>>

single-winner methods, it would still be useful to have a "use >>>>
multiwinner PR instead" option, to see how well it would do >>>>
compared to the single-winner methods. >>>> >>>> I'd also suggest the
following methods: >>>> >>>> Majority Judgement (as a category; includes
usual judgement >>>> etc.) Approval with manual runoff (since it has
seen actual >>>> use) Copeland//Borda (proposed by Equal Vote) >>>> >>>>
and to echo Joshua Boehme, I'd also like to know what it's a >>>> poll
of: the theoretically best method, the one with best >>>> chance of
passing a reform effort, most bang for the buck, or >>>> something else?

compliance reduces the chaos you would otherwise get from >>>>
elimination. It tends to have somewhat of a center bias within >>>> the
"clusters" (solid coalitions entitled representation by >>>> Droop >>
proportionality), but that might not be too bad if it deters >>
extremist kingmaker scenarios. >>>> (You'd do a ranked pairs election
every time you've elected >>>> someone and eliminated him from the
ballots, then eliminate >>>> from the RP loser up until someone exceeds
the quota, then >>>> elect him, distribute surpluses, and do a new RP
election, and >>>> so on.) >>>> >>>> -km > > ---- Election-Methods
mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em > for list infoobert
Newland said "only half a democracy."

On 2024-04-06 09:14, Toby Pereira wrote:

Maybe somebody else could run the poll? I'd nominate myself, but I've
got two people blocked.

I guess I could unplonk them for the duration if no better solution
presents itself -- but if MO has got me blocked too, it'd be far from ideal.

-km

I'm reading from the Spam-Folder to find out what nominations I've missed
from blocked individuaos.

But there's no guarantee that I'll find everything that I missed, & so it
would be great if someone would post a few additional updates of the
nominations-list, at least until I get the remaining 2 persons( for a total
of 3 of the 4) provisionally unblocked.

On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 3:15 AM Toby Pereira tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

I told you that I was done with that conversation, & then you posted "I
know that Michael said he was done with this conversation, but..."

...& then proceeded to continue your repetition of your unusual personal
definition of bias & your interpretation of "most proportional"., without
saying where Professor Huntington went wrong with his justification of
ratio as a measure of variation in s/v. You said that you found
Huntington's paper, but evidently either didn't read it or didn't
understand it. You didn't share with us what you believe was the error in
his argument, or why your interpretation is better than his.

I certainly had the right to block you instead of continuing to receive
your messages with your repetition. You didn't give me a choice, when you
continued it.

I haven't decided to ignore anyone. I've requested that nominations from
the 4 blocked individuals be re-posted by someone else. Additionally, I've
already provisionally unblocked Garman, & will next unblock Kristofer &
Bristow, provisionally.

Anyway, there's no need to say that anyone is "running" the poll. The
nominations count, & are distributed to all of us. Someone other than me
should post a few more nomination-list updates, because obviously mine
can't be reliably-complete until I've unblocked the 2 remaining persons
whom I intend to provisionally unblock, for the purpose of my participation
in the poll

On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 1:57 PM Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet@t-online.de
wrote:

I answered this post, but let me repeat that the poll that I propose is
purely a single-winner method poll. Yes, PR would be better for a national
government, but that's illegal for the U.S. Congress, &, even at
state-level, PR is more difficult to enact, due to its being a bigger &
more drastic change. Yes it should be part of proposal-packages, but
single-winner proposals are a lot more promising for sooner results.

update.

This poll has enough alternatives already, without including PR. PR should
be the subject of a separate poll.  I proposed this single-winnner methods
poll because single-winner methods are about to be voted on for enactment.

Alright, we've now all heard those 3 nominations, & of course those 3
methods are automatically alternatives in the poll-voting as soon as the
nomination is posted.

Good point. I was meaning to clarify that. This poll is intended to be
about merit-in-use. ...disregarding winnability & proposability.  ...but
taking into account strategy-problems,, expense of implementation, expense
& difficulty of administration, complexity & consequent insecurity of
count, & consequent count-fraud vulnerability.  So, it's about
merit-in-use, in all its aspects.

Of course we don't rate those various merit-in-use considerations in the
same order.

Wow. Maybe great performance-merit, but that's only part of merit-in-use.
There's also implementation cost & difficulty, administration cost &
difficulty, & anti-count-fraud audit9ng difficulty. I don't suppose a
handcount-audit would be very feasible. That's why I prefer the
ultra-simple Party-List solution. It's the reason why, among the 2/3 of the
world's countries that use PR, nearly all of them use Party-List instead of
STV.

Party-List PR allocations, with open or closed lists, can be done at any
kitchen-table where there's a hand-calculator, or even a pencil & paper.
...& can be implemented at zero expense. No new balloting-equipment. No
need for software for its easy & short allocation-calculation.

...& if the Party-List allocation rules (SL, DH, etc.) are considered too
complicated, then there's always SNTV, which trades voter-convienience for
the most absolute simplicity of rules.

But PR is currently illegal for Congress here, &, even at state-level, will
take longer to get, because it's a bigger change from the status-quo.
Soon-ness of change is really important, giving special importance to
single-winner reform.

Anyway, someone could propose a PR poll, after this single-winner methods
poll has been counted & its resultls posted.

-km

On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 4:33 PM James Gilmour jamesgilmour@f2s.com wrote:

Let's not be too quick to be sure that we're right. Remember what Dunning &
Kruger said.

Wrong. You will use what's legal (or of course change Congressional
statute, for which there's no such thing as initiatives), &, in any case
what can be most quickly & easily enacted. There's some urgency, &
soon-enacstability counts very much.

As I mentioned, multimember Congressional districts are illegal here, by
federal law, which isn't subject to initiatives.

Dream on. That's farther away & more distantly attainable.  I'd prefer PR
for Congress. In fact, I'd prefer a party-list PR Parliament...no
president. But it seems things can't always be as I'd prefer. Single-winner
reform is what's more attainable sooner here. As I mentioned "Soon" is
importan.

It's to be used for all single-winner races, including
single-member-district Congressional seats, because it isn't easy to change
federal-law. How many Democrat or Republican Congressmemembers are willing
to allow PR?  Bill Clinton fired Lani Guinier because she was a PR
advocate. He said he fired her because PR is "antidemocratic".

What, then elect a different party to Congress, to get the law changed?
How possible do you think that is here?  That, too, goes into the "Dream
On" category..

Non-Republocrat parties are struggling for ballot-access, which can only be
achieved at great expense, separately in each of the 50 states. Everything
is against anyone other than a Republican or Democrat being elected...&
onlly one that toes the antidemocratic line.

So, kndly don't be so quick & glib with your criticisms.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 2:36 PM Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:

It's to show people the popularity of what's "on their [public] ballot",
among people familiar with voting-systems & their relative merit.