1. P.R. = Total Votes / Total Seats — via pre-election candidate rank order lists to transfer surplus and loser votes.

2. The push appears to be away from an at-large system to a single member district system. By this, I can only imagine the push will be for minority-majority districts, a bastardized way which forces noncompetitive elections and changes the group being disenfranchised. This also includes a ridiculous number of wasted votes.

   It’s sad that this is the reflexive “solution” as opposed to single transferable vote (Demo Rep’s description). With five members all being elected at once, a group with about 17% support would get representation as this is a proportional system. Further, you don’t need a new election for replacing officers during an interim.

   Given there are only five seats (presumably less total candidates), a ranking system isn’t that bad as far as being cumbersome on the voters. Would there have been more, a system such as a proportional approval variant (very simple for voters) might work well.

   The problem with these situations is that advocates and officials tend to narrow their focus to dysfunctional plurality methods (maybe limited or cumulative voting if they get really adventurous). In Douglas Amy’s book Behind the Ballot Box he notes unduly limiting your options as one of the most common fatal errors in selecting a voting system.

   He states: “Considering a wide range of systems not only increases your chances of finding the best one, but the very process of comparing very different types of systems helps to illuminate the advantages and disadvantages of each and in that way contributes to a more informed decision.”

3. Demo Rep didn’t describe Single Transferable Vote.

   With STV, each _voter_ makes an ordered list of who they want their vote to be transfered to in case of elimination or surplus.

   What D.R. suggested is that the _candidates_ make such lists.

   Subtle, but important, difference. Mostly in that each voter need only name one candidate. (Also avoids people whining about fractional votes being moved about.)

   But there are many ways to do PR. Although STV is probably the best-known.

4. For any clueless folks on this list —

   ALL of the major legislative bodies in the U.S.A. are ANTI-Democracy EVIL and VICIOUS indirect minority rule gerrymander oligarchy regimes (since 4 July 1776) — ALL tending to be de facto monarchy regimes — with DICTATOR speakers and majority *leaders* — many controlled by even worse DICTATOR Prezs, State Guvs, local mayors, etc. —

   both houses of the gerrymander Congress

   ALL houses of ALL gerrymander State legislatures

   many, many local govt gerrymander legislative bodies.

   Thus the pending collapse of the U.S.A. — due to accumulated govt debts, undeclared wars, mega economy control freak schemes, etc.

   There are LOTS of STUPID voters who can barely make an X in a box — due to the New Age *politically correct* rotted to the core public schools.

   Thus any P.R. method must be really simple — so that even the party hack Supremes can understand it — with their very limited party hack brains.

   REAL Democracy NOW via P.R. — before it is too late.

5. #1, 4

   Example- 100 Votes / 5 Members = 20 Average
   A 26 – 6 = 20 Elected
   B 20 Elected
   C 18 + 2 = 20 Elected
   D 16
   E 9
   F 7 + 4 = 11
   G 4
   Excess A votes moved.
   —–
   A 20 Elected
   B 20 Elected
   C 20 Elected
   D 16
   F 11 + 4 = 15
   E 9
   G 4 – 4 = 0 Loses
   —–
   A 20 Elected
   B 20 Elected
   C 20 Elected
   D 16 + 4 = 20 Elected
   F 15 + 5 = 20 Elected
   E 9 – 9 = 0 Loses

   ALL voters elect somebody.

   Simple enough even for the party hack SCOTUS folks to understand — with their very limited math skills — and the super worse know-it-all MORON media types ???

6. Pingback: Brevard County Public Records - How do you find public records for Los Angeles County?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.