Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: stv

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston1
    Could we ask Walter and Bernard (and any other offenders I haven t noticed recently) to please trim their responses, and include only quoted material to which
    Message 1 of 22 , May 15 4:49 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Could we ask Walter and Bernard (and any other
      offenders I haven't noticed recently) to please trim
      their responses, and include only quoted material to
      which they are responding or that is necessary to
      understand the context?

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...>
      wrote:

      > Why do you prefer the transferable ballot to a single
      > non-transferable ballot producing multiple
      > representatives (as has been used in Japan and
      > elsewhere)? I mena, it, too, yields minority
      > representation, it's much simpler both to understand
      > and implement, and there's no chance of different
      > results based on the order in which the ballots
      > happen to be counted.

      I've devised a better system that addresses a number
      of chronic problems in British-style parliamentary
      democracies better than STV or simple multi-member
      constituency systems. The problems include the
      following:

      1. Instability: a small shift in voting patterns can
      result in a large shift in representation and thus in
      government policy, which shift is then reversed when
      the voting pattern changes slightly again at the next
      election.

      2. Cabinet overstretch and corruption: although
      parliamentary accountability of cabinet ministers is
      IMO a good thing, when cabinet ministers are drawn
      from the body of locally elected representatives,
      they are beholden to their local support base, and
      their decisions naturally tend to favor their own
      constituencies at the expense of the whole society;
      also, being a representative is a full-time job, as is
      being a cabinet minister, so expecting one person to
      do both jobs is asking a bit much.

      3. Lack of representation: citizens in a constituency
      that did not elect a member from the governing party
      are effectively disenfranchised, as no one speaks for
      them in government, which simply ignores their views.

      4. Lack of representation (2): even in constituencies
      that elected a government member, citizens who oppose
      the governing party and/or its policies have no one
      to represent their views in parliament.

      5. Disproportion: this is the well known and
      extensively studied problem that effectiveness of
      representation depends strongly on geographic
      concentration; the party that barely won in most of
      its constituencies is over-represented compared to
      both the party that barely lost and the party that
      won its constituencies by a landslide.

      6. Corruption by campaign donors: the winner-take-all
      nature of the contest makes parties overspend on
      advertising and campaigning to avoid a "bare loss,"
      because all the spending of every losing candidate was
      equally wasted no matter how many or how few votes they
      received; this incentive to spend more and more no
      matter how far ahead the candidate might be encourages
      an "arms race" in fund-raising, and makes parties
      overly dependent on fund-raising, and thus on
      deep-pocketed donors.

      Problems with STV include complexity, potentially
      perverse results, and an emphasis on strategic
      considerations over honest policy differences.

      Problems with simple multiple-member constituencies
      include polarization and gerrymandering resulting in
      an even more disproportionate result than FPTP.

      My solution to these problems is a particular form of
      three-member constituencies. Each party would name
      one local candidate in each constituency, and in
      addition would have a list of (typically more highly
      qualified) at-large candidates from which to draw its
      cabinet in the event that it formed the government, or
      its shadow cabinet if it did not form the government.
      Each voter would vote for a single candidate. The top
      two finishers in each constituency would be declared
      elected. If the top finisher received more than twice
      as many votes as the third-place finisher, one member of
      his party's at-large list would be "provisionally elected."
      Otherwise, the third-place finisher would be provisionally
      elected. The party with the most elected and
      provisionally elected members would then be declared the
      "governing party" (ties broken by total popular vote).
      At that point, all the provisionally elected members in
      constituencies that did not elect a member from the
      governing party would be replaced by the candidate for
      the governing party or, if there was no candidate for the
      governing party in that constituency, by a member of the
      governing party's at-large list.

      This system would ensure that citizens in all local
      constituencies had representation both in the government
      and in the opposition. It would make representation more
      proportional to popular vote while reducing the associated
      problems of unworkable minority governments and fringe or
      joke parties gaining representation and obstructing
      government business and wasting time and resources. It
      would eliminate the problem of cabinet ministers being
      beholden to local support and required to perform two
      full-time jobs. It would greatly reduce the incentive to
      overspend on local campaigns in order to avoid a bare loss.
      It would reduce the problem of instability wherein small
      shifts in voter sentiment produce large shifts in
      representation and policy, and guarantee that opposition representation could not fall below 1/3 of all members.

      -- Roy Langston
    • Bernard Rooney
      ... What complexity? It is no more than basic numeracy, not a problem for either voters or officials. It is only complex if people are innumerate and cant
      Message 2 of 22 , May 16 5:21 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > Posted by: "roy_langston1" roy_langston1@...   roy_langston1
        >

        >
        > Problems with STV include complexity,

        What complexity? It is no more than basic numeracy, not a problem for
        either voters or officials.

        It is only 'complex' if people are innumerate and cant count up to
        about 7 or so.

        >potentially
        > perverse results,

        What perversity? Provided there are sufficient members in each
        electorate (5 minimum, 7 or more better) it always gives highly
        proportionate results, a true 'mirror of the nation's mind'.


        >and an emphasis on strategic
        > considerations over honest policy differences.


        How so?

        Roy, it seems to me you are trying to reinvent the wheel. This debate
        has been going on for 100 years, STV has long since been agreed to be
        the best system, by the ERS in UK and PRSA in Australia, recommended
        for the election of all representative bodies, from the local club
        committee to corporate boards to national parliaments.

        The problems you mention are all addressed by multi-member,
        quota-preferential proportional representation.

        Opposition to it invariably comes from the self- or vested interest of
        parties and governments, or unfamiliarity.

        Someone mentioned the Japanese system of non-transferable vote. This
        would mean the voter cannot order preferences - an elementary defect.
        Even Cameron and Clegg might introduce preferential voting.

        A classic opportunity presented itself here at the recent UK election
        but from my limited contact with the issue it seems there is no real
        understanding or determination to achieve reform.

        The Lib-Dems, supposedly progressive, will be tainted with the Tory
        brush and future elections will probably revert to the winner-take-all
        Lab-Tory contest, greatly preferred by those two parties.
      • walto
        ... Don t know if computers have solved this problem yet, but counting the votes in Cambridge, MA used to take several days. ... The complexity is not in
        Message 3 of 22 , May 17 7:08 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Bernard Rooney <bernardrooney@...> wrote:
          >
          > >
          > > Posted by: "roy_langston1" roy_langston1@...   roy_langston1
          > >
          >
          > >
          > > Problems with STV include complexity,
          >
          > What complexity? It is no more than basic numeracy, not a problem for
          > either voters or officials.


          Don't know if computers have solved this problem yet, but counting the votes in Cambridge, MA used to take several days.


          >
          > It is only 'complex' if people are innumerate and cant count up to
          > about 7 or so.


          The complexity is not in filling out the ballot, but in counting them.

          >
          > >potentially
          > > perverse results,
          >
          > What perversity? Provided there are sufficient members in each
          > electorate (5 minimum, 7 or more better) it always gives highly
          > proportionate results, a true 'mirror of the nation's mind'.
          >

          The perversity results from the fact that if you simply shuffle the ballots and redistribute them to bins, different people could win.



          > >and an emphasis on strategic
          > > considerations over honest policy differences.
          >
          >
          > How so?
          >
          > Roy, it seems to me you are trying to reinvent the wheel. This debate
          > has been going on for 100 years, STV has long since been agreed to be
          > the best system, by the ERS in UK and PRSA in Australia, recommended
          > for the election of all representative bodies, from the local club
          > committee to corporate boards to national parliaments.
          >
          > The problems you mention are all addressed by multi-member,
          > quota-preferential proportional representation.
          >
          > Opposition to it invariably comes from the self- or vested interest of
          > parties and governments, or unfamiliarity.
          >
          > Someone mentioned the Japanese system of non-transferable vote. This
          > would mean the voter cannot order preferences - an elementary defect.


          Consider this question: Should the group voting for the leading vote getter not only get someone to represent their viese, but also decide which other candidates are or are not acceptable? To me, that's an interesting question, and one to which there isn't really any "correct" answer. E.g., decent arguments could be made on both sides of the question of whether an "extremist candidate" (i.e., one that comes in second on first-place votes but gets not a single second, third or fourth place vote) should be kept out of a four-seat district.

          In addition, while both systems provide minority representation, it might not be completely correct to say that either system necessarily produces "proportional democracy." That might require divvying up the power (votes, etc.) of the elected officials based on the numbers who voted for THEM. And there are reasons both for and against doing that, too. (Does an official represent just those who elected him/her or the entire district?--different answers produce different theories about governance.) I make no comment here on Roy's proposal, which I'm not sure I understand, and haven't thought about, anyhow.

          The conclusion to be gleaned from these considerations, IMHO, is (again) that there is no "perfect system" of representative democracy. There are pluses and minuses to all of them. They are more or less fair to minorities, more or less efficient/clumsy, more or less stable, etc.

          Best,

          W
        • John
          BBC on PR An excellent interactive graph there. The AV system is not Proportional
          Message 4 of 22 , May 17 8:59 AM
          • 0 Attachment

            BBC on PR  An excellent interactive graph there.  The AV system is not Proportional Representation.

            2010 election:
            • First Past The Post: C = 306; Lab = 258; Lib = 57; Others = 28;

            • Single Transferable Vote: C = 246; Lab = 207; Lib = 162; Others = 35;

            • Alternative Vote: C = 281; Lab = 262; Lib = 79; Others = 28;

            • Alternative Vote plus: C = 275; Lab = 234; Lib = 110; Others = 31;

            • Simple Proportional Representation: C = 234; Lab = 189; Lib = 149; Others = 78;

          • walto
            ... Thanks, John, that s interesting and helpful. I note, though, that one of the two methods I was describing--the single non-transferable ballot, used to
            Message 5 of 22 , May 17 9:24 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > BBC on PR
              > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm> An
              > excellent interactive graph there. The AV system is not Proportional
              > Representation.
              >
              > 2010 election:
              > * First Past The Post: C = 306; Lab = 258; Lib = 57; Others = 28;
              >
              >
              > * Single Transferable Vote: C = 246; Lab = 207; Lib = 162; Others =
              > 35;
              >
              >
              > * Alternative Vote: C = 281; Lab = 262; Lib = 79; Others = 28;
              >
              >
              > * Alternative Vote plus: C = 275; Lab = 234; Lib = 110; Others = 31;
              >
              >
              > * Simple Proportional Representation: C = 234; Lab = 189; Lib = 149;
              > Others = 78;
              >

              Thanks, John, that's interesting and helpful. I note, though, that one of the two methods I was describing--the single non-transferable ballot, used to elect multiple representatives--is not discussed there. I don't know if it has been used in Europe (maybe it's too "simple"), but it has been used to elect members of the Japanese Diet, IIRC.

              W
            • roy_langston1
              ... roy_langston1 ... Is 1 high or low? Believe me, a lot of people will assume it s like on a scale of 1 to 10. ... They also have to make pairwise choices
              Message 6 of 22 , May 17 11:02 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Bernard Rooney
                <bernardrooney@...> wrote:

                > > Posted by: "roy_langston1" roy_langston1@...
                roy_langston1
                > >
                > > Problems with STV include complexity,
                >
                > What complexity? It is no more than basic numeracy,
                > not a problem for either voters or officials.

                Is 1 high or low? Believe me, a lot of people will
                assume it's like "on a scale of 1 to 10."

                > It is only 'complex' if people are innumerate and
                > cant count up to about 7 or so.

                They also have to make pairwise choices between all
                the candidates. Many will find it difficult.

                > >potentially perverse results,
                >
                > What perversity? Provided there are sufficient
                > members in each electorate (5 minimum, 7 or more
                > better) it always gives highly proportionate
                > results, a true 'mirror of the nation's mind'.

                Which will likely give unworkable hung parliaments.

                > >and an emphasis on strategic
                > > considerations over honest policy differences.
                >
                > How so?

                People can potentially "vote against" their last
                choice by putting their second choice above their
                first choice.

                > Roy, it seems to me you are trying to reinvent the
                > wheel. This debate has been going on for 100 years,
                > STV has long since been agreed to be the best
                > system, by the ERS in UK and PRSA in Australia,
                > recommended for the election of all representative
                > bodies, from the local club committee to corporate
                > boards to national parliaments.

                Well, it's better than FPTP, but has been abandoned
                by some jurisdictions that once used it, showing that
                there are real problems.

                > The problems you mention are all addressed by
                > multi-member, quota-preferential proportional
                > representation.

                How does it address the problem of chronic
                ungovernable minority parliaments seen in so many
                countries that use forms of PR? How does it
                combine local representation with ministerial
                independence from local support?

                > Opposition to it invariably comes from the self-
                > or vested interest of parties and governments,
                > or unfamiliarity.

                One can always claim insufficient familiarity.

                -- Roy Langston
              • Harry Pollard
                Walter , Using STV with multiple constituencies not only provides an excellent proportional election, it also allows voters to choose
                Message 7 of 22 , May 31 11:34 AM
                • 0 Attachment

                  Walter,

                   

                  Using STV with multiple constituencies not only provides an excellent proportional election, it also allows voters to choose between candidates of their parties.

                   

                  Instead of voting for a less able candidate of your party, you can choose to elect a more able candidate.

                   

                  That it takes longer to make the count isn’t relevant if we finish with a result that more clearly indicates the preferences of the voters.

                   

                  Harry  

                   

                  From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walto
                  Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 9:31 PM
                  To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [LandCafe] Re: stv

                   

                   

                  Why do you prefer the transferable ballot to a single non-transferable ballot producing multiple representatives (as has been used in Japan and elsewhere)? I mena, it, too, yields minority representation, it's much simpler both to understand and implement, and there's no chance of different results based on the order in which the ballots happen to be counted.

                  W

                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Bernard Rooney <bernardrooney@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > >
                  > > Posted by: "John" burns-john@...   burns_curtis
                  > >
                  >
                  > >
                  > > The Lib Dems Could Have Guaranteed Proportional Representation
                  > >
                  > > They should have went for the guaranteed PR from Labour not a
                  > > wishy-washy promise.
                  >
                  > It that is true Clegg's betrayal and shortsightedness is pretty spectacular.
                  >
                  > It will now be a Tory government with a Labor opposition. At the next
                  > election the Lib-Dems are likely to lose the 'balance of power'.
                  >
                  > There is a lot to do, but reforms must be pursued in a certain order.
                  >
                  > Electoral reform has to be among the first. The first past the post
                  > system - used primarily only in the US and the UK - is primitive.
                  >
                  > The Lib-Dems should have insisted on STV - with all the bells and
                  > whistles. Odd number electorates, minimum 5 members per electorate
                  > (preferably 7), Robson rotation, countback, no 'above the line', no
                  > 'party list'.
                  >
                  > If they had achieved that they could have entrenched their position in
                  > British politics/government. I dont know what Clegg thinks he is going
                  > to achieve now other than a big desk and ministerial car.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > And had a Progressive Alliance with Labour - two
                  > > left of centre parties. Senior Lib Dems, Lord Ashdown and Menzie
                  > > Campbell could see that and were furious about the deal with the Tories.
                  > > Ashdown has disappeared and not been on TV, I believe he is so annoyed.
                  > >
                  > > Lib Dems Betrayed Millions
                  > >
                  > > It was degrading what the Lib Dems did. The Lib Dems sold out for
                  > > ministerial cars to satisfy their egos. The Lib Dems sold their souls
                  > > and betrayed millions. The millions who voted to keep out the Tories and
                  > > for a Lib Dem-Labour Progressive Alliance. They then jump in bed with
                  > > the hated Tories.
                  > > The appalling electoral system we have, has meant the most hated party
                  > > in the UK, after the BNP, the Tories, who are hated with a passion in
                  > > some parts of the UK, have previously got into power using sweeping
                  > > unopposed powers on the majority who did not want them there. Look at
                  > > the DAMAGE Thatcher did. The most Thatcher ever had was 43% of the vote
                  > > yet caused carnage. She would not be allowed to do that with a full PR
                  > > system.
                  > >
                  > > The guaranteed window of opportunity to change British politics has been
                  > > ignored by the Lib Dems for ego and ministerial cars. How shallow.
                  > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Signs are not good for LVT in the Coalition of All the Public School
                  > > boys.Mansion tax which could have been the thin edge of the LVT wedge
                  > > has bitten the dust.Its proponent Vince Cable has his hands full with
                  > > bank reform.
                  > > >
                  > > > Chris Huhne , a world-class land taxer,has got a position from which
                  > > he could not really introduce LVT.And then there are the Tories most of
                  > > whom are as thick as two short planks.Caroline Spelman is possibly the
                  > > stupidest person in public life: her defence of the status quo in which
                  > > the Tories bribe their voters with promises of endless house price
                  > > increases is unaffected by even the slightest doubt that this is a fit
                  > > and proper thing to do.She is the doyenne of the Tory
                  > > people-must-stand-on-their own-two-feet-while-
                  > > receiving-untaxed-unearned- capital gains- in-their-property school of
                  > > thought, which bunch of twisters is well entrenched now thanks to Lib
                  > > Dem support.
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > Back to top
                  > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
                  > > Messages in this topic (2)
                  > > 2a.
                  > >
                  > > Re: European Union and Geonomics
                  > >
                  > > Posted by: "Gareth Doutch" gareth.doutch@...   gareth.doutch
                  > >
                  > > Thu May 13, 2010 8:47 am (PDT)
                  > >
                  > > Are you familiar with Michael Hudson's writings? Don't hold your breath...
                  > > http://michael-hudson.com/2010/05/euro-bankers-to-greecethe-wealthy-won%E2%80%99t-pay-their-taxes-so-labor-must-do-so/
                  > >
                  > > ________________________________
                  > > From: John <burns-john@...>
                  > > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Sent: Thu, 29 April, 2010 13:29:55
                  > > Subject: [LandCafe] European Union and Geonomics
                  > >
                  > > Does anyone know if the EU could get involved in implementing LVT across Europe? I am not well upon EU law etc.
                  > >
                  > > I fear that if LVT was introduced by say Labour or LibDems, or a coalition of both, in the UK, the Tories would dismantle it immediately if they got into power.
                  > >
                  > > It has to be a permanent part of our system, like democracy is. The EU could guarantee that.
                  > >
                  > > Back to top
                  > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
                  > > Messages in this topic (2)
                  > > 3a.
                  > >
                  > > Re: Lib Dems Coalition and LVT
                  > >
                  > > Posted by: "roy_langston1" roy_langston1@...   roy_langston1
                  > >
                  > > Thu May 13, 2010 11:46 am (PDT)
                  > >
                  > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@>
                  > > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > On the surface this sounds encouraging. However
                  > > > realistically the dominant Tories are against LVT and
                  > > > they hold sway. Dose anyone think they have a chance
                  > > > of getting LVT implemented in a limited form - the
                  > > > thin edge of the wedge? Like replacing the existing
                  > > > Council Tax with the limited version LVT the Lib Dems
                  > > > proposed.
                  > >
                  > > It would be a mistake for the Lib-Dems to put any
                  > > significant effort into getting LVT implemented. Such
                  > > an effort would surely fail, wasting precious political
                  > > capital and activist energy; and even if it didn't, it
                  > > would only play into the Tories' hands politically by
                  > > relieving the social and economic problems that their
                  > > servitude to privilege naturally creates.
                  > >
                  > > Far better to just use the opportunity to put rent
                  > > recovery on the public policy agenda and raise voter
                  > > consciousness in preparation for the next election.
                  > > Gently but insistently remind the majority of Tory
                  > > voters -- middle class working people -- that the
                  > > Tories serve only the privileged 5% at the top, not
                  > > them. Remind the majority of Labour voters -- also
                  > > middle class working people -- that Labour has for over
                  > > 70 years consistently lined up with privilege on the
                  > > issue of recovering publicly created value for public
                  > > purposes and benefit. Take every opportunity to
                  > > profess bafflement at Labour's insistence on punitively
                  > > taxing working people's earnings to provide subsidies
                  > > to the wealthy, idle, greedy, parasitic landowning
                  > > overclass. That the Tories would do it is a given, but
                  > > Labour?
                  > >
                  > > If the Lib Dems want help putting together more talking
                  > > points and sound bites on rent recovery, let me know.
                  > >
                  > > -- Roy Langston
                  > >
                  > > Back to top
                  > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
                  > > Messages in this topic (2)
                  > > 4a.
                  > >
                  > > Henry George's Descendents
                  > >
                  > > Posted by: "Jason" nysa71@...   nysa71
                  > >
                  > > Thu May 13, 2010 12:48 pm (PDT)
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Hi All,
                  > >
                  > > I recently read on the Wikipedia article on Henry George that he had 4
                  > > children. However, I only found the names of two of them: Henry George,
                  > > Jr. (1862 - 1916) and Anna Angela George (b. 1879).
                  > >
                  > > Just out of curiousity, does anyone know the names of the other two? Or
                  > > was the Wikipedia article incorrect in the number of children?
                  > >
                  > > Like I said, just curious.
                  > >
                  > > ---Jason
                  > >
                  > > Back to top
                  > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
                  > > Messages in this topic (2)
                  > > 4b.
                  > >
                  > > Re: Henry George's Descendents
                  > >
                  > > Posted by: "biddle19118@..." biddle19118@...   biddle19118
                  > >
                  > > Thu May 13, 2010 11:01 pm (PDT)
                  > >
                  > > Richard F. George, sculptor b.circa 1864 and Jennie George Atkinson d 1897 - All are buried at Greenwood Cemetery in Brooklyn NY in Tom L. Johnson's plot near Johnson and spouse
                  > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                  > >
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: "Jason" <nysa71@...>
                  > > Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 19:46:12
                  > > To: <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                  > > Subject: [LandCafe] Henry George's Descendents
                  > >
                  > > Hi All,
                  > >
                  > > I recently read on the Wikipedia article on Henry George that he had 4
                  > > children. However, I only found the names of two of them: Henry George,
                  > > Jr. (1862 - 1916) and Anna Angela George (b. 1879).
                  > >
                  > > Just out of curiousity, does anyone know the names of the other two? Or
                  > > was the Wikipedia article incorrect in the number of children?
                  > >
                  > > Like I said, just curious.
                  > >
                  > > ---Jason
                  > >
                  > > Back to top
                  > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
                  > > Messages in this topic (2)
                  > > 5.
                  > >
                  > > Lib Dems in Coalition
                  > >
                  > > Posted by: "David Reed" dbcreed@...
                  > >
                  > > Fri May 14, 2010 12:39 am (PDT)
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > You have to remember that LVT is not official Lib/Dem policy.They have officially lined up behind local income tax (instead of LVT on residential property),though they did have a commitment to LVT for business property in their manifesto.But this too does not show up in the joint Con-Dem policy agreement.
                  > >
                  > > What does show up is an intention to raise Capital Gains Tax to the same rate as Income tax (from the present 18%) which would affect second homes and buy-to-let properties. There is something of a panic in the National Landlords Association as CGT on property is one of these LVT-lite measures which do some ,not enough,of the work of LVt but without using the dread words land value tax
                  > >
                  > > which Tories are conditioned to respond to (most robotic response from Caroline Spelman who is some kind of Orwellian construct)
                  > >
                  > > .
                  > >
                  > > Land taxers like Huhne and to a certain extent Vince Cable will almost have to act as a secret society in the cabinet.
                  > >
                  > > It is not all bad for Cameron.As an aristocratic liberaliser, a Neo-Whig? ,he has liberalised the Conservatives at a stroke.All the mad increase-the-inheritance-of-property
                  > >
                  > > stuff they were proposing to keep their knuckle-dragging
                  > >
                  > > Nasties happy can now be jettisoned with a shrug and
                  > >
                  > > "We are in a different age and we have to make some concessions to those pinko Lib dems to stay in power."
                  > >
                  > > Cameron is governing on a much more moderate manifesto than he stood on.
                  > >
                  > > However the 5% pay cut he imposed on the Cabinet
                  > >
                  > > shows his true direction: towards the crazy make the recession worse policies of the last peace-time coalition government.It was FDR who showed us Brits the way out
                  > >
                  > > in the 1930's, the forgotten,dishonoured colossus of American politics.
                  > >
                  > > __________________________________________________________
                  > > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/
                  > > We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
                  > > Back to top
                  > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
                  > > Messages in this topic (1)
                  > > 6.
                  > >
                  > > Re: sellout?
                  > >
                  > > Posted by: "Bernard Rooney" bernardrooney@...   bernard1050
                  > >
                  > > Fri May 14, 2010 1:10 am (PDT)
                  > >
                  > > I was a bit surprised to hear of the Lib-Tory coalition.
                  > >
                  > > Would there be any chance of single transferable vote, or property tax reform?
                  > >
                  > > Or has Clegg totally sold out, before he even steps into the office?
                  > >
                  > > I take it there is zero chance of any action on Afghanistan, finance
                  > > reform, neo-liberalism etc.
                  > >
                  > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:16 PM, <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > The Value Capture/Land Tax  Idea Factory
                  > > >
                  > > > Messages In This Digest (1 Message)
                  > > >
                  > > > 1. Lib Dems Coalition and LVT From: John
                  > > > View All Topics | Create New Topic
                  > > >
                  > > > Message
                  > > >
                  > > > 1.
                  > > >
                  > > > Lib Dems Coalition and LVT
                  > > >
                  > > > Posted by: "John" burns-john@...   burns_curtis
                  > > >
                  > > > Thu May 13, 2010 2:21 am (PDT)
                  > > >
                  > > > The LibDems Alter group is for LVT. The top three in the group are in
                  > > > the cabinet of new UK Tory-Lib Dem coalition government. With Nick
                  > > > Clegg being the Deputy Prime Minister. Vince Cable is Business
                  > > > Secretary and will be highly influential in financial matters.
                  > > > http://libdemsalter.org.uk/PresidentChris Huhne MP
                  > > > Vice-PresidentsNick Clegg MPVince Cable MP
                  > > > On the surface this sounds encouraging. However realistically the
                  > > > dominant Tories are against LVT and they hold sway. Dose anyone think
                  > > > they have a chance of getting LVT implemented in a limited form - the
                  > > > thin edge of the wedge? Like replacing the existing Council Tax with
                  > > > the limited version LVT the Lib Dems proposed.
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > Back to top
                  > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
                  > > Messages in this topic (1)
                  > > Recent Activity
                  > >
                  > > Visit Your Group
                  > > Stay on top
                  > >
                  > > of your group
                  > >
                  > > activity with
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Toolbar
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! News
                  > >
                  > > Get it all here
                  > >
                  > > Breaking news to
                  > >
                  > > entertainment news
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Finance
                  > >
                  > > It's Now Personal
                  > >
                  > > Guides, news,
                  > >
                  > > advice & more.
                  > >
                  > > Need to Reply?
                  > >
                  > > Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
                  > >
                  > > Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
                  > > Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Calendar
                  > > To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                  > > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
                  > > To unsubscribe:  LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > > MARKETPLACE
                  > >
                  > > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
                  > >
                  > > ________________________________
                  > >
                  > > Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.
                  > >
                  > > ________________________________
                  > >
                  > > Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.
                  > >
                  > > Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
                  > > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
                  > > Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
                  >

                • roy_langston1
                  ... While these are worthy goals, they are not the only goals. STV does not address the problems of ungovernable minority parliaments, ministerial obligation
                  Message 8 of 22 , May 31 12:43 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:

                    > Using STV with multiple constituencies not only
                    > provides an excellent proportional election, it
                    > also allows voters to choose between candidates
                    > of their parties.
                    >
                    > That it takes longer to make the count isn't
                    > relevant if we finish with a result that more
                    > clearly indicates the preferences of the voters.

                    While these are worthy goals, they are not the
                    only goals. STV does not address the problems of
                    ungovernable minority parliaments, ministerial
                    obligation to local interests, and the double
                    workload of being both a representative of
                    local interests and a member of cabinet.

                    And Harry, please trim your responses to include
                    only context necessary to understand your response.

                    -- Roy Langston
                  • walto
                    ... I don t like to repeat, but I will say one more time, that my main problem with the single transferable ballot is that depending on the order in which the
                    Message 9 of 22 , May 31 1:33 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@> wrote:
                      >
                      > > Using STV with multiple constituencies not only
                      > > provides an excellent proportional election, it
                      > > also allows voters to choose between candidates
                      > > of their parties.
                      > >
                      > > That it takes longer to make the count isn't
                      > > relevant if we finish with a result that more
                      > > clearly indicates the preferences of the voters.
                      >
                      > While these are worthy goals, they are not the
                      > only goals. STV does not address the problems of
                      > ungovernable minority parliaments, ministerial
                      > obligation to local interests, and the double
                      > workload of being both a representative of
                      > local interests and a member of cabinet.
                      >
                      > And Harry, please trim your responses to include
                      > only context necessary to understand your response.
                      >
                      > -- Roy Langston
                      >

                      I don't like to repeat, but I will say one more time, that my main problem with the single transferable ballot is that depending on the order in which the ballots are counted, you can get different people elected. Even if there were nothing else wrong with it, that seems to me dispositive.

                      W
                    • Harry Pollard
                      I think the governable majority government of the present Democrats is pretty awful. I think America breathed a sigh of relief when the 60 votes were lost in
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jun 4, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment

                        I think the “governable majority” government of the present Democrats is pretty awful.

                         

                        I think America breathed a sigh of relief when the 60 votes were lost in the Senate.

                         

                        Local interests and their lobbyists are very much in control of Congress – not a good thing.

                         

                        Let’s force them to talk to each other and come to a conclusion rather than have them bulldoze unpopular things through the process.

                         

                        Cutting things from another correspondent’s post leads to thoughts that the cuts are tactical rather than efficient.

                         

                        Harry

                         

                        From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of roy_langston1
                        Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 12:44 PM
                        To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [LandCafe] Re: stv

                         

                         

                        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:

                        > Using STV with multiple constituencies not only
                        > provides an excellent proportional election, it
                        > also allows voters to choose between candidates
                        > of their parties.
                        >
                        > That it takes longer to make the count isn't
                        > relevant if we finish with a result that more
                        > clearly indicates the preferences of the voters.

                        While these are worthy goals, they are not the
                        only goals. STV does not address the problems of
                        ungovernable minority parliaments, ministerial
                        obligation to local interests, and the double
                        workload of being both a representative of
                        local interests and a member of cabinet.

                        And Harry, please trim your responses to include
                        only context necessary to understand your response.

                        -- Roy Langston

                      • Harry Pollard
                        Here is what Nic Tideman wrote. (Better Voting Methods Through Technology: The Refinement-Manageability Trade-Off in the Single Transferable Vote) He tells me
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jun 4, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Here is what Nic Tideman wrote. (Better Voting Methods Through Technology: The Refinement-Manageability Trade-Off in the Single Transferable Vote)

                           

                          He tells me in reply to your point about counting order:

                           

                          That is true of the system used in Ireland, and perhaps of the system used in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but not of most systems for counting the Single Transferable Vote.

                          The reason it is true of the Irish system is that they transfer whole votes.  Most other systems transfer fractions of votes, which makes it possible to have a result that is independent of the order in which the votes are counted.”

                           

                          Harry

                           

                          From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walto
                          Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 1:34 PM
                          To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [LandCafe] Re: stv

                          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:

                          >
                          > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@> wrote:
                          >
                          > > Using STV with multiple constituencies not only
                          > > provides an excellent proportional election, it
                          > > also allows voters to choose between candidates
                          > > of their parties.
                          > >
                          > > That it takes longer to make the count isn't
                          > > relevant if we finish with a result that more
                          > > clearly indicates the preferences of the voters.
                          >
                          > While these are worthy goals, they are not the
                          > only goals. STV does not address the problems of
                          > ungovernable minority parliaments, ministerial
                          > obligation to local interests, and the double
                          > workload of being both a representative of
                          > local interests and a member of cabinet.
                          >
                          > And Harry, please trim your responses to include
                          > only context necessary to understand your response.
                          >
                          > -- Roy Langston
                          >

                          I don't like to repeat, but I will say one more time, that my main problem with the single transferable ballot is that depending on the order in which the ballots are counted, you can get different people elected. Even if there were nothing else wrong with it, that seems to me dispositive.

                          W

                        • walto
                          Thanks, and thank Nic for me as well. I m not familiar with systems in which fractional votes are transferred. That may well take care of this problem. W
                          Message 12 of 22 , Jun 4, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thanks, and thank Nic for me as well. I'm not familiar with systems in which fractional votes are transferred. That may well take care of this problem.

                            W

                            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Here is what Nic Tideman wrote. (Better Voting Methods Through Technology:
                            > The Refinement-Manageability Trade-Off in the Single Transferable Vote)
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > He tells me in reply to your point about counting order:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > "That is true of the system used in Ireland, and perhaps of the system used
                            > in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but not of most systems for counting the Single
                            > Transferable Vote.
                            >
                            > The reason it is true of the Irish system is that they transfer whole votes.
                            > Most other systems transfer fractions of votes, which makes it possible to
                            > have a result that is independent of the order in which the votes are
                            > counted."
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Harry
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                            > Of walto
                            > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 1:34 PM
                            > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: [LandCafe] Re: stv
                            >
                            > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe%40yahoogroups.com> ,
                            > "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe%40yahoogroups.com> ,
                            > "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > > Using STV with multiple constituencies not only
                            > > > provides an excellent proportional election, it
                            > > > also allows voters to choose between candidates
                            > > > of their parties.
                            > > >
                            > > > That it takes longer to make the count isn't
                            > > > relevant if we finish with a result that more
                            > > > clearly indicates the preferences of the voters.
                            > >
                            > > While these are worthy goals, they are not the
                            > > only goals. STV does not address the problems of
                            > > ungovernable minority parliaments, ministerial
                            > > obligation to local interests, and the double
                            > > workload of being both a representative of
                            > > local interests and a member of cabinet.
                            > >
                            > > And Harry, please trim your responses to include
                            > > only context necessary to understand your response.
                            > >
                            > > -- Roy Langston
                            > >
                            >
                            > I don't like to repeat, but I will say one more time, that my main problem
                            > with the single transferable ballot is that depending on the order in which
                            > the ballots are counted, you can get different people elected. Even if there
                            > were nothing else wrong with it, that seems to me dispositive.
                            >
                            > W
                            >
                          • walto
                            Thanks for that citation, Harry. I just finished reading Nic Tideman s (interesting and informative) paper. It suggests to me, however, that the single
                            Message 13 of 22 , Jun 4, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks for that citation, Harry. I just finished reading Nic Tideman's (interesting and informative) paper. It suggests to me, however, that the single non-transferable ballot (in a multi-seat district) is superior to all the various versions of stv provided in that paper.

                              If there are 5 seats in my district, in a sn-tv system, we geoists just might get a representative. And if my views are represented by SOMEBODY, I don't care so much who the other 4 reps will be. OTOH, the sn-tv suggests (at least to me) that the elected officials in such a system actually represent only their electors and nobody else, And that further suggests that the authority of each of the 5 representatives should be weighted by the size of votes received.

                              That is, all the representatives in an stv system seem to represent every voter, since each vote ranked ALL (or at least many of) the candidates and can be expected to factor in the election of all those who win. But in a sn-tv system of the type I'm proposing, electors can be expected to bullet their favorite candidate and have no say in how any of the others do. Thus it seems that (as in the old Soviet duma, e.g.) interests rather than districts would be represented. But, since we want democracy to be really reflective of various majorities and not just treat all interest groups as if they were the same size, it seems to me that the weights of the votes of those elected should not be equal (i.e., in my example, 1/5 of the district).

                              Anyhow, I'd be curious to hear what Nic thinks about (the much simpler, both to understand and administer) single non-transferable ballot system of voting.

                              W

                              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Here is what Nic Tideman wrote. (Better Voting Methods Through Technology:
                              > The Refinement-Manageability Trade-Off in the Single Transferable Vote)
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > He tells me in reply to your point about counting order:
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > "That is true of the system used in Ireland, and perhaps of the system used
                              > in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but not of most systems for counting the Single
                              > Transferable Vote.
                              >
                              > The reason it is true of the Irish system is that they transfer whole votes.
                              > Most other systems transfer fractions of votes, which makes it possible to
                              > have a result that is independent of the order in which the votes are
                              > counted."
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Harry
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                              > Of walto
                              > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 1:34 PM
                              > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: [LandCafe] Re: stv
                              >
                              > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe%40yahoogroups.com> ,
                              > "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe%40yahoogroups.com> ,
                              > "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > > Using STV with multiple constituencies not only
                              > > > provides an excellent proportional election, it
                              > > > also allows voters to choose between candidates
                              > > > of their parties.
                              > > >
                              > > > That it takes longer to make the count isn't
                              > > > relevant if we finish with a result that more
                              > > > clearly indicates the preferences of the voters.
                              > >
                              > > While these are worthy goals, they are not the
                              > > only goals. STV does not address the problems of
                              > > ungovernable minority parliaments, ministerial
                              > > obligation to local interests, and the double
                              > > workload of being both a representative of
                              > > local interests and a member of cabinet.
                              > >
                              > > And Harry, please trim your responses to include
                              > > only context necessary to understand your response.
                              > >
                              > > -- Roy Langston
                              > >
                              >
                              > I don't like to repeat, but I will say one more time, that my main problem
                              > with the single transferable ballot is that depending on the order in which
                              > the ballots are counted, you can get different people elected. Even if there
                              > were nothing else wrong with it, that seems to me dispositive.
                              >
                              > W
                              >
                            • David Reed
                              @walto Ears prick up when you hear talk of getting Land taxers elected even though low down the poll.Surely the answer is the Borda count which is what most
                              Message 14 of 22 , Jun 4, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                @walto
                                Ears prick up when you hear talk of getting Land taxers elected even though low down the poll.Surely the answer is the Borda count which is what most people think PR is?
                                I am no expert but I would have thought multi member constituencies plus Borda counting gets rid of problem of fractions.Though there are some obvious disadvantages.But who cares if a load of land taxers get elected on fourth/ fifth choice  votes? 


                                Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now.
                              • walto
                                ... I would care, my friend. I d party like it s 2099. W
                                Message 15 of 22 , Jun 5, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > @walto
                                  >
                                  > Ears prick up when you hear talk of getting Land taxers elected even though low down the poll.Surely the answer is the Borda count which is what most people think PR is?
                                  >
                                  > I am no expert but I would have thought multi member constituencies plus Borda counting gets rid of problem of fractions.Though there are some obvious disadvantages.But who cares if a load of land taxers get elected on fourth/ fifth choice votes?
                                  >


                                  I would care, my friend. I'd party like it's 2099.

                                  W
                                • Fred Foldvary
                                  ... Is local land-based public revenue bad? For example, the idiots in Berkeley California are enacting parcel taxes based on the square footage of buildings
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Jun 5, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- On Fri, 6/4/10, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
                                    > But who cares if a load of land taxers get elected on fourth/ fifth choice  votes? <

                                    Is local land-based public revenue bad?

                                    For example, the idiots in Berkeley California are enacting parcel taxes based on the square footage of buildings instead of lots.

                                    Fred Foldvary
                                  • walto
                                    According to the Wikipedia article, one downside of the Borda system in districts with multiple winners is this:- Unlike most other voting systems, in the
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Jun 5, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      According to the Wikipedia article, one downside of the Borda system in districts with multiple winners is this:-

                                      "Unlike most other voting systems, in the Borda count it is possible for a candidate who is the first preference of an absolute majority of voters to fail to be elected; this is because the Borda count affords greater importance to a voter's lower preferences than most other systems...."


                                      IMO, however, those in the minority would learn to bullet their faves, anyhow, so the effect would be not much different than sn-tv; to the extent that the results ARE different, however, it would likely hurt "oddball minorities" like us, and favor "consensus candidates."

                                      FWIW, the problems for sn-tv pointed out by the WIKI article on that system involve parties putting up candidates intended to split the votes of their adversaries, and parties possibly getting the most votes, but fewer winners than some other parties. These are not the sort of disadvantages that minorites like us should worry about. IMO, sn-tv is the system that is most designed to help groups like us. Most other systems are designed to prevent us from getting any representation.

                                      W


                                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > @walto
                                      >
                                      > Ears prick up when you hear talk of getting Land taxers elected even though low down the poll.Surely the answer is the Borda count which is what most people think PR is?
                                      >
                                      > I am no expert but I would have thought multi member constituencies plus Borda counting gets rid of problem of fractions.Though there are some obvious disadvantages.But who cares if a load of land taxers get elected on fourth/ fifth choice votes?
                                      >
                                      > _________________________________________________________________
                                      > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
                                      >
                                    • roy_langston1
                                      ... Talk about your deal breakers.... ... Hearts and minds first, votes and implementation later. -- Roy Langston
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Jun 5, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...>
                                        wrote:

                                        > According to the Wikipedia article, one downside of
                                        > the Borda system in districts with multiple winners
                                        > is this:-
                                        >
                                        > "Unlike most other voting systems, in the Borda
                                        > count it is possible for a candidate who is the
                                        > first preference of an absolute majority of voters
                                        > to fail to be elected;

                                        Talk about your deal breakers....

                                        > IMO, sn-tv is the system that is most designed to help
                                        > groups like us. Most other systems are designed to
                                        > prevent us from getting any representation.

                                        Hearts and minds first, votes and implementation later.

                                        -- Roy Langston
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.