On Jan 31, 2012 3:17 AM, "Clinton Mead" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm < [email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 01/31/2012 07:14 AM, Clinton Mead wrote: >>> >>> Why not simply IRV until 500 candidates are left. >> >> >> STV would probably be better - or if you want a weighted assembly, continuous cumulative voting (which is like RV except every ballot's rating is divided by the sum of the undivided ratings on that ballot). >> > > Why STV? The original poster wanted elected representatives to have votes proportional to their electoral support yes? There's no need for fractional transfers from elected candidates then. >
IRV is a form of STV, but it's not my favorite. Some of the other STV methods (e.g. Schulze-STV and CPO-STV) tend to produce better eliminations. But the question of why not STV is a good one. Several reasons. STV requires much more work on the part of the voter - ranking all the way down to a candidate likely to be elected, instead of just one. That probably means a much larger ballot and/or an arbitrary cutoff between ballot-candidates and write-in candidates. The STV variants that are less strategy-prone are computationally inefficient, and even those are not strategy-free. And perhaps most importantly, the more resistant an STV method is to strategy, the more complicated it is to explain and understand. As deterministic methods go, I do like STV methods; but DS fixes a lot of the worries I have about them.
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
