At 05:51 +0200 12.2.2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can understand this only if you vote for parties you don't like. It ought
to be possible with STV and the Hare quota if you have to indicate all
possible preferences.
D- The forced transfer of surpluses using STV is quite arbitrary -- related
Using d'Hondt's rule, this sort of offensive strategic manipulation
by clever vote-splitting appears to be impossible... it seems obvious
from playing with examples, although I'm having trouble coming up
with a clean way to explain it. So, it looks like d'Hondt might be
the better choice for
A historical note -- since I have used Mr. H. in my anti- IRV examples.
For younger folks --- about 55-60 million folks died in World War II thanks
to Hitler in Germany and Hirohito in Japan-- both tyrant killers on the all
time killer tyrants list.
-
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Adam Tarr wrote:
(Side note: I'm almost
sure sequential and non-sequential PAV are equivalent if there is no
overlap in the votes between various voting factions.)
That's right!
As I mentioned, in some cases a pecking order is actually desirable.
Here's another
Adam wrote in part-
In list PR, the candidate lists for parties have to be formed well in
advance of the election. It would be very difficult for a party to foresee
a specific voting breakdown, and split their party into two or more parties
to take advantage of this.
---
D - Any historical
Blake said:
So the existence of candidates that are best for specific individuals
proves that there are no absolute best candidates? I claim that toads
don't exist. After all, you admit that frogs do exist. What more proof
do you need?
I reply:
I must admit that I don't understand the
