A standard count for election and exclusion
Election implies a first choice, and exclusion implies a last choice.
It is also established that intermediate choices exist, even tho most
of the worlds electoral systems don’t formally recognise a range of
choice, sometimes called preference or ranked choice. (Preferential
suffrage of the vote, in turn, implies a proportional suffrage of the
count, necesary to elect a range of choices, or preferences, from a
sufficiently good choice of candidates, in multi-member constituencies).
Middle choices are recognised, by convention and in academe, with
regard to the worlds two main blocs of voting systems, simple
plurality and party list.
The so-called wasted vote, used in main party electioneering
propaganda, at least since the Second World War, is an arm twister on
the voters, to forego a first choice, for a middle choice, in order to
defeat a last choice.
Strategic voting or tactical voting, to use its British name, has the
same objective, as a willing renunciation, by the voters, rather than
succumbing to main party blackmail.
Both party list voting and simple plurality elections are limited by
the one-choice X vote, and so both are prone to strategic voting. Peer
reviewed academics, such as Anika Freden, have identified four main
types of strategic voting with party lists systems and their hybrids.
All this goes to show that election and exclusion form part of a
continuum of choice, from first to last choice, with a usually tacit
middle choice.
Representation of the voters is generally accomplished by a positive
election procedure and a negative exclusion procedure. Logically, this
procedure should be the same for both election and exclusion, because
they are part of the same continuum or scale of choice.
The system of “Binomial STV” accomplishes this logically required
symmetry of election count and exclusion count, to a rational standard.
Regards,
Richard Lung.
