kevin_standlee (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
kevin_standlee) wrote2007-01-04 12:19 pm
kevin_standlee) wrote2007-01-04 12:19 pm
Entry tags:
Range Voting
The folks advocating Range Voting contacted WSFS (actually, the WSFS webmaster, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sfrose) lobbying WSFS to change its voting system from the Instant Runoff Voting system we currently use for site selection and the Hugo Awards. Sharon told them how our rules work and suggested that if they want to change them, they come to WSFS business meetings and propose and debate the changes there, like all other rule changes. The advocate's response, in my opinion, amounted to, "Our proposal is so obviously Right that we shouldn't have to do all that hard, expensive work. You should change your rules because we tell you to do so."
I often tell people who come to me with rules-change proposals, "If you think it's worthwhile, come and submit it yourself. I'll help you with all of the technicalities to the best of my ability, but you have to make your own case, lobby people yourself, and get the votes by convincing people." Most of the time, this discourages them -- democracy is hard work! But sometimes we get people who are willing to work and debate, and sometimes we even get workable changes and improvements.
WSFS rules are intentionally designed to be resistant to change; however, they can be changed if people work hard enough at it. But it's not enough to just lobby a Board of Directors or subvert the Chairman; you have to convince the members.
sfrose) lobbying WSFS to change its voting system from the Instant Runoff Voting system we currently use for site selection and the Hugo Awards. Sharon told them how our rules work and suggested that if they want to change them, they come to WSFS business meetings and propose and debate the changes there, like all other rule changes. The advocate's response, in my opinion, amounted to, "Our proposal is so obviously Right that we shouldn't have to do all that hard, expensive work. You should change your rules because we tell you to do so."I often tell people who come to me with rules-change proposals, "If you think it's worthwhile, come and submit it yourself. I'll help you with all of the technicalities to the best of my ability, but you have to make your own case, lobby people yourself, and get the votes by convincing people." Most of the time, this discourages them -- democracy is hard work! But sometimes we get people who are willing to work and debate, and sometimes we even get workable changes and improvements.
WSFS rules are intentionally designed to be resistant to change; however, they can be changed if people work hard enough at it. But it's not enough to just lobby a Board of Directors or subvert the Chairman; you have to convince the members.
no subject
1. The Plurality System
(i) The plurality system in single-member constituencies
(ii) Multi-member plurality sytems
(iii) Weighted plurality systems
2. Preferential systems
(i) Single-member preferential systems
(a) The alternative vote [i.e. IRV, which did not yet have that name]
(b) The double-ballot
(ii) Multi-member preferential systems
(a) The single transferable vote
3. List systems
(i) The simultaneous list
(ii) The local list
(iii) The party list
4. Mixed systems [which it doesn't enumerate in a list]
In the description of STV, page 59 of the Penguin edition, it says, "If, as with our hypothetical example, no candidate exceeds the quota of 651 and there are still seats to be filled, the procedure used in the alternative vote [that is, IRV] is operated."
So it acknowledges the relationship between the two, but you see that it depicts STV as borrowing the procedure for IRV - which, in fact, it does not always need to do in actual cases - not as IRV being a special case of STV.
You can look at them that way if you want, but it is not inaccurate to say that they are different systems and that a single-winner election using it should say it is using IRV, not STV.
no subject
IRV is a subset of STV, so it's totally applicable.
..it depicts STV as borrowing the procedure for IRV - which, in fact, it does not always need to do in actual cases - not as IRV being a special case of STV.
STV doesn't "borrow" from IRV - IRV is just STV applied to a single-winner election.
From FairVote.org, the ring leaders of the IRV movement:
The only point being made in your quote is that situations can apparently arise in multi-winner STV that have to be accounted for, but that they don't arise in single-winner STV. That doesn't mean these systems are different.
Let me make this perfectly empirical. You show me any set of rank-order ballots you can devise, where IRV picks a different winner than STV.
Clay