On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Jameson Quinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Please don't lump IRV and STV. Yes, they use the same underlying mechanisms, > but the effects are totally different. STV can, in practice, completely > eliminate the partisan spoiler problem; IRV cannot. And, as I've said above, > the core STV insight - the part that's shared by other STV systems like > Schulze-STV - is not the bottom-up elimination, but the transfer and > assignment of votes. > JQ STV reduces to IRV in the last round and shares many of the same flaws as IRV including, but not limited to - unequal treatment of voters' votes, hiding the 2nd and later choices of some voters not others, nonmonotonicity, requires centralized counting or a huge number of separate totals for each precinct (more than the number of precinct voters in any case with large numbers of candidates), and thus eviscerates election transparency and verifiability, and has potential to create all sorts of anomalous outcomes. In other words, is one of the few voting methods that fails more of Arrow's fairness criteria than plurality method and introduces extreme difficulties in administering elections and verifying the integrity of outcomes. Both IRV and STV pose a serious threat the fairness and integrity of elections IMO and I oppose these methods strongly. -- Kathy Dopp http://electionmathematics.org Town of Colonie, NY 12304 "One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the discussion with true facts." Fundamentals of Verifiable Elections http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/?p=174 View some of my research on my SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=1451051 ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
