Peter Zbornik wrote:
Article in New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627581.400-electoral-dysfunction-why-democracy-is-always-unfair.htm
(link from http://www.openstv.org/).
I suppose it's good enough for an introductory article, but some of the
emphasis seems odd.
For instance, they make a big deal of the Alabama paradox in
proportional representation, and only mention divisor methods at the end
of the note elaborating the paradox - but most countries use divisor
methods and quota violation happens more seldomly than the Alabama paradox.
Also, it doesn't explain that Condorcet ties can be broken in practical
situations, and I would say it places too much emphasis on IIA - but
that may be true of arguments that "Arrow shows voting can't be fair",
in general.
To sum all that up: yes, there are glitches, and no, you can't get
around all of them. Yet some methods are less flawed than others, and I
think one can get close enough that the lack of perfection doesn't matter.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
