> > So it would make sense for the Democrats to push for a preferential
> > voting system, wouldn't it. Unless they think that it won't happen
> > again for a long time. You can't allow yourself to be threatened or
>> coerced with dire warning about the result. Stay strong, they have
>> more to lose than you. Think of the future.
>
>Vermont is fairly close to permanently adopting IRV.
>
>The current Gov and Lt Gov are Republicans, but I've been in contact
>with the (likely winner) Lt Gov, Campaign Manager for the Gov, and the
>Chief of Staff for the (Dem) Speaker of the Vermont House.
>
>It's a math question, and none of them are mathematicians. I have yet to
>come up with the "instantly obvious" presentation.
>
>It would be quite logical of me spend part of next week generating 3d
>graphs that would illustrate how the different system create different
>results.
That sounds like madness. It isn't a math issue at all, unless you are trying to blind them with science. It isn't as if preferential voting is a radical new concept that needs to be checked for mathematical flaws, its been in use around the world for donkey's years. Its a political question. Forget about all these complex systems that are used only to elect the board of directors of a weird local housing co-op. There's plently of different systems used to elect actual governments of actual western nations like the USA.
>That is, after all, what the National Academy of Sciences did in order
>to change the mathematics of apportionment.
>
>Actually, Libertarian and Christian Fundie Republicans, anyone who leans
>towards a third party, would favor rational voting system reform.
Yes, but they don't have the power to implement it. The point is to convince those who do. My strategy is simple and doesn't rely on any good will towards political competitors.
>So, you jumped to conclusions, and jumped all over me for not liking
>them.
Maybe.
> > Because reducing the proportion of votes a candidate needs
>> to win election is the obvious way to increase the number of
>> electable parties. And PR does that.
>
>PR might be semi-useful for assemblies, but it is useless for electing
>people to single seats (Governors, Presidents, Attorneys General).
Obviously. Although there is no difference in principle. Australian single member electorates are all filled with preferential voting and basically the counting is done the same way as with PR. The quota for a single member electorate is 50% of valid votes, plus 1. Which is the same in essence as the quota for multi-member electorates.
[Numer of valid votes divided by [number of vacancies to be filled plus one]] plus one vote.
Its essentially the same thing. The only difference is that in multi member seats the count needs to provide for distribution of preferences of winning candidates, where their vote exceeds the quota.
That's simple enough. Keep it simple. Its isn't exactly rocket science, you make out it is.
>Even with PR, you still have to consider how you count the votes. Matrix
>Math is the only sound way.
I don't believe so. Single Transferrable Vote is far simpler to understand and people have enough trouble with understanding that. Especially Americans, in my experience. Also, it appears to me that this "matrix math" is a method designed to count votes in two ways - higher preference votes FOR a candidate, lower preference votes against. I see no virtue in that. Lower preference votes are only counted in STV in the event that the voters higher preference candidates are eliminated. You are already voting against a candidate by giving them a low preference, there's no justifiable reason to discriminate against a candidate who has enough preferred votes simply because a higher number than average put him last.
If enough voters put a candidate low down their preference, below any other electable candidate, that will keep that candidate out under simple STV. Seen it happen lots of times.
What exactly is your problem with that simpler system?
> > However I see that you capitalised the "Ranked Ballot", perhaps you
>> had in mind some special meaning for the words which are not
>> immediately apparent? If so, then I have no idea what you are talking
>> about. It doesn't help that you refer to things by some archaic 18th
>> century term like "Condorcet". If you are so in favour of
>> preferential voting reform in your country then surely you can
>> appreciate that it doesn't help to refer to it by some weird exotic
>> term, instead of the plain English descriptive term.
>
>Condorcet is the standard, current, term for it.
>
>http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/VM/ISSUE3/P5.HTM
In the academic community in places that don't actually use preferential voting systems maybe. There's some people here from Ireland, is it a term in common use there?
>If you care to criticize my proposals, surely you can appreciate that it
>doesn't help to (fatuously) criticize the terminology, instead of
>dealing with the issue on the merits.
I have dealt with the issue on merits, as I've been able to drag the details out of you.
>Packer, it was. While I was in Australia he had the row with the
>Governor over pokie machines. The Gov said Packer had threatened to
>spend millions running ads against him unless he came out pro-pokie.
>After the Gov said this, Packer used his radio stations to call the Gov
>a "loonie" (iirc) for suggesting that it had ever happened.
It wouldn't have been a row with any "governor", a position which is mostly ceremonial as head of state of the Six Australian states comprising Australia. What state was it? Of course Packer was notorious for this kind of thing. His father was an even bigger bastard.
>I simply don't know of any collapses of any Empires that resulted in
>anything better. The barbarians of the Frankish Kingdoms after the
>collapse of the Western Roman Empire being the example that springs to
>mind most readily.
The Franks were a bit ruthless at first, but they did bring new ways which were an improvement on the way the Romans did things. After all, the Roman empire collapsed, so it was far from perfect. Their economic system was based on slavery, the Franks eventually improved on that (from the efficiency point of view) by moving towards feudalism.
The collapse of the British Empire worked out pretty good for most of the peoples around the world who were colonial subjects. The north Americans for instance. Or would you like to go back to being a colony?
It isn't plain sailing of course, the collapse of the US empire will bring new challenges too. But anything's better than a decadent empire. George W Bush is a sure sign of America's decadence.
Bill bartlett Bracknell tas