Diana wrote: "Talking of Craig Carey, can someone please explain what his most recent diatribe was on about? And whether it's worth my while worrying about? (Since he's thrown Markus out of his private party -- at least that's how it appears to outsiders -- I'd like to know whether he actually has a point or is just excellent at posturing.)" Diana.
Dear Diana, Donald here, there are a number of persons on this list who speak in gobbledegook. Craig Carey is one of them, so if you don't understand him, you can be pretty sure no one else does, but there will come a time when these types of people will write something that is understandable and that will be the time when you can learn where that person is coming from, if he has a point, and if he is worth worrying about. Craig Carey has given himself away in the past and most likely will do so again in the future, merely by writing something that is understandable. I can give you an example. Craig has designed an election method, which he calls: `The Two Seat - Three Candidate Method' and which he claims to be a variant of STV, you can decide that. Anyway it works as follows: Ranked ballots, Droop quota, first candidate with quota or quota plus surplus is elected to one of the seats, then this candidates' quota and surplus are both transferred to the next preferences. (Note: This method won first prize in a contest for best variant of STV, a contest conducted by Craig on Craig's list.) Can you see the problem here? The quota that elected one member is now being used to help elect the second member, or in other words, one quota plus one vote has the power to elect both seats. The other two near quotas do not elect anyone. This super-duper method by Craig is worst than Plurality-at-Large, which would need fifty percent plus one to elect both candidates. I called him on this flaw in his method, but it was water off a duck's back, he kept on promoting his method. Craig is not alone in this lack of understanding of election methods. On the IRV list, someone asked if IRV could be used to elect two members to a city council. Dan, who is an official of the Center for Voting and Democracy replied and suggested that IRV be run two times. Once to elect one member and a second time to elect the second member, bypassing the name of the first winner during the routine of the second run of IRV. Dan is clearly showing that he does not understand how these election methods work. What he suggested is very close to Plurality-a-Large, that is, the same majority gets to elect both members. Anyway, if you chose not to read Craig's posts, you won't miss much, but on the other hand, if you have time to kill (good for people who like their time to be dead), you could skim over his posts seeking the rare moment when a star will appear in the east and you will see something understandable (wear your sunglasses, the glare is quite bright), then and only then will you be able to look into that window to Craig's mind. Are you strong enough for this??? Regards, Donald ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
