<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body>
<div dir="auto">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server" style="">
<!-- converted from text --><style style=""><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style></div>
<font size="2" style=""><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText" dir="auto">I do not agree with Bill - I suspect we are on opposite sides of this starting from fundamental assumptions and beliefs, going right up to the implementation details and opinions about the consequences.<br>
I believe STV will be an improvement over the current process, as I believe FPP voting has much greater inherent unfairness than STV. (None of these systems are *good*, it's about which produces less bad outcomes, as far as I'm concerned.)<br>
<br>
Feel free to stop reading here. That might be best, in fact...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I believe Bill's fundamental approach to elections and voting is... not compatible with my beliefs & needs. In my opinion, his two points are coloured by _his_ ideology, as is to be expected.</div>
<div class="PlainText" dir="auto">* The defeat of a plurality candidate who got the most votes, while very much a corner case, is possible - but it is neither unexpected nor undesirable. That's a feature, not a bug. STV resembles a (hoping I remember the
terminology correctly...) weighted centroid model, where enough smaller clusters can, in aggregate, successfully pull the center of the graph away from a dominant cluster.<br>
* Unless the voting system allows for both "for" and "against" votes, no-one has voted *against* any candidate at all, ever, even if that was both their thought process and their intent. That's logically equivalent to thinking you can prove a negative. If
you only have choices A and B, a vote for one is *equivalent* to a vote against the other, but it is not factually a vote against anything at all. Note that I'm not necessarily opposed to being able to cast votes both for and against candidates, it could
even massively increase voter turnout - I'd sure love to vote against some of the jerks who run for public office around here!<br>
<br>
STV has by now had quite a bit of real-world testing, certainly on scales far, far larger than ARIN and with - IMO again - much more "real-world" impact to the average voter; it has shown itself to *not* regularly produce the bizarre results its detractors
are worried about; and it has shown to produce more balanced, less lop-sided outcomes that do not completely ignore minority groups.<br>
<br>
If you're regularly part of the majority and you're happy with the outcomes of FPP voting on a regular basis, OF COURSE you wouldn't want to switch to STV - the system is stacked in your favour. Hence why no significant _structural_ electoral reform of this
sort has taken place in North America in ... well, I think it's a couple of centuries, but I'm not that confident in my knowledge of political history. Up here, we have a head of state who campaigned on a promise to abolish FPP ... 6? years ago, and has done
approximately nothing about it yet - and likely won't for the reasons I just enumerated.</div>
<div class="PlainText" dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText" dir="auto">-Adam<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: ARIN-consult <arin-consult-bounces@arin.net> On Behalf Of William Herrin<br>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 3:00 PM<br>
Cc: <arin-consult@arin.net> <arin-consult@arin.net><br>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 8:38 AM ARIN <info@arin.net> wrote:<br>
> One recommendation that has arisen from this governance review is to replace the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system with single transferrable voting (STV), also known as ranked-choice voting. STV would provide the ability for the community to
realize the following primary benefits:<br>
<br>
<br>
Hello,<br>
<br>
Since the consultation is coming to a close, I want to take a moment<br>
to reiterate:<br>
<br>
I respectfully OPPOSE a transition to STV voting due to the<br>
demonstrated mathematical flaws in the process.<br>
<br>
STV as proposed in the consultation can lead to unexpected and<br>
undesirable results including:<br>
* defeat of the plurality candidate who got the most votes<br>
* election of a candidate opposed by a clear majority of voters<br>
<br>
It can reach these undesired results because the math involved in the<br>
instant-runoff process amplifies the impact of some votes while<br>
effectively nullifying others. I went through the math back in my<br>
early January posts if you want to see how that happens.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<br>
-- <br>
William Herrin<br>
bill@herrin.us<br>
<a href="https://bill.herrin.us/">https://bill.herrin.us/</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-Consult<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing<br>
List (ARIN-consult@arin.net).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult</a> Please contact the ARIN Member Services<br>
Help Desk at info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>