On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:41:56 +0000 Raph Frank wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Kathy Dopp <[email protected]> wrote:
From: "Terry Bouricius" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EM] STV and weighted positional methods
What is even more puzzling is Ms. Dopp's continued defense of plurality
voting.
If you look you could notice that Kathy is addressing your topic and, at
least here, not concentrating on Plurality.
Gee Terry. I guess it must really puzzle you that I would rather:
1. cast a vote and know it helps rather than hurts my favorite
candidate to win (unlike in IRV/STV)
That isn't the case in plurality. Lots of people vote for one of the
top-2 rather than their favourite.
She is presumably doing what she says, whether in Plurality or some other
method where such works.
IRV allows you vote for your favourite first choice while still
allowing you participate in the 'real' election between the top-2
candidates.
You can consider it a series of elections. In each election, the
weakest candidate is eliminated and a new election held with the
remaining candidates.
IRv usually does such, but DOES NOT always do.
The ranked ballot allows this to be accomplished with only a single ballot.
2. have my ballot and all its choices treated equally with all other
voters ballot choices (unlike in IRV/STV)
All voters are given equal ballots. Any advantage that other voters
have, you also have.
She is talking of treatment, not offering.
3. have a method that is precinct-summable so easy to manually count
and audit (unlike in IRV/STV)
That is an a valid complaint. However, you can still be almost
precinct summable.
Each precinct announces its results, and then a central office issues
instructions on how to perform the next round.
This is a BIG difference, since each round must be completed, including
resolving disputed ballots, before the central office can know what to
announce.
In Ireland, all ballot boxes are brought to a central location for
counting in each constituency/district.
In the US ballots are for multiple races, which can serve multiple
districts - not clear how such could be combined in one central location.
4. use a method that does not require computer programs that are so
complex that they are considered to be of exponential runtime to run
and so difficult to accurately write that so far not one US vendor has
written an accurate one (unlike in IRV/STV)
Huh? In Ireland, we hand count the votes for PR-STV. It certainly
isn't exponential run-time.
Each round takes a linear amount of time and the max number of rounds
is equal to the number of candidates minus one.
The count time is thus at most (number of votes)*(number of
candidates-number of seats). However, in practice, each round
generally only requires counting of surplus ballots or counting of
votes for an eliminated candidate.
Apparently needs thought - we hear of San Francisco taking much time.
5. allow all voters to participate in the final counting
round/decision on whom to elect.
Huh?
This is the case with IRV/STV. The only time it doesn't happen is if
people don't fill in all the ranks (which granted does happen).
Also, if you always rank one of the top-2, then you are likely to be
part of the last round, even if you don't rank everyone.
I don't actually think IRV is a good system, though PR-STV is a good
system as long as it elects a reasonable number of candidates (say 4
or more).
Yes. You are very puzzled Terry that I would want a fair, equitable
system for counting votes.
I, on the other hand, am very puzzled by your desire to implement a
voting method that is far less fair and equitable, in almost every
single way, than our existing voting method is.
I think that you have rose coloured glasses for plurality. It is one
of the worst voting systems out there.
I am not sure if IRV is really that much better though. It seems to
maintain 2 party domination (see Australia). Its advantage, if any,
is that it provides more info to the elected candidates about their
support base. If a large number of the voters who elected you, voted
for a 3rd party as their first choice, it might be worth looking into
what that party stands for.
What is your view on approval? That is monotonic, precinct-summable,
treats voters equally and produces fair results. Similarly, what do
you think of the condorcet methods? (they have meet/fail various
criteria)
1. to help some voting system vendor handsomely profit by the sale of
new software and equipment that can count IRV, or
I think that is a little unfair. It is perfectly reasonable to
support IRV for non-corrupt reasons.
I don't think you support plurality in order to maintain the monopoly
of current voting machine vendors. I disagree with your reasoning,
but I don't think you have an ulterior motive.
2. to help implement a voting method that is virtually impossible and
very costly at best to manually audit after elections so that someone
you know, perhaps, can have a better chance of committing undetectable
fraud.
In Ireland, we count PR-STV by hand and there are various checks that
can be accomplished.
--
[email protected] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
