On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com wrote:
STV has *all* the same flaws as IRV but is even worse.
I think that it has all the same flaws, but that the damage they do is
mitigated by the fact that it is a multi-seat method. OTOH, it has
large benefits over other PR
... where the winners may be opposed by a
majority of voters.
Kathy, which would you rather have -- a legislature in which each segment of
the population is represented in proportion to its size, or a legislature which
represents only the winning segment? If you prefer the latter, then of
Kathy Dopp wrote:
STV has *all* the same flaws as IRV but is even worse.
It is unimaginable how anyone could support any method for counting
votes that is so fundamentally unfair in its treatment of ballots and
produces such undesirable results.
The reason is very simple: the Droop
A nice feature of PR-STV is that it still meets the Droop Criterion no
matter who you pick to eliminate in rounds where no candidate meets
the quota (assuming you don't eliminate an elected candidate).
However, there doesn't seem to be much discussion on using a better
elimination method.
The
On Apr 30, 2009, at 9:24 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
A nice feature of PR-STV is that it still meets the Droop Criterion no
matter who you pick to eliminate in rounds where no candidate meets
the quota (assuming you don't eliminate an elected candidate).
However, there doesn't seem to be much
On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Kathy Dopp wrote:
STV has *all* the same flaws as IRV but is even worse.
It is unimaginable how anyone could support any method for counting
votes that is so fundamentally unfair in its treatment of ballots and
produces such
--- On Thu, 30/4/09, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:18 AM,
Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com
wrote:
STV has *all* the same flaws as IRV but is even
worse.
I think that it has all the same flaws, but that the damage
they do is
mitigated by the fact that it
At 10:18 PM 4/29/2009, Kathy Dopp wrote:
STV has *all* the same flaws as IRV but is even worse. It is
unimaginable how anyone could support any method for counting votes
that is so fundamentally unfair in its treatment of ballots and
produces such undesirable results.
I don't think Ms. Dopp,
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com wrote:
The problem with these approaches (a problem, anyway) is that they abandon
later-no-harm. That seems a rather high price to pay.
Well, the first suggestion, where the approval ballot is separate from
the ranked ballot
On Apr 30, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Jonathan Lundell
jlund...@pobox.com wrote:
The problem with these approaches (a problem, anyway) is that they
abandon
later-no-harm. That seems a rather high price to pay.
Well, the first suggestion, where
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Yes. But not necessarily superior in
all aspects.
The first problem in my mind is that
STV sets some practical limits to the
number of candidates.
This is an issue for PR-STV. In fact, it is (IMO) the only major issue.
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Kathy Dopp wrote:
STV has *all* the same flaws as IRV but is even worse.
It is unimaginable how anyone could support any method for counting
votes that is so fundamentally unfair in its treatment of ballots and
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com wrote:
Well, we can disagree about that, no doubt. For me, it's a high priority to
eliminate or reduce strategic considerations from the actual voting act, and
LNH eliminates a big one.
However, if the approval and rank votes
While Abd and I regularly bump heads on certain issues, I am quite
sympathetic to his core concept of Asset voting (essentially a super-proxy
system). But for near term adoption for North American governmental
legislative elections, STV is the best option out there.
And contrary to Abd's
At 03:48 PM 4/30/2009, Terry Bouricius wrote:
By the way, Abd has an error or typo
where he miss-states the Droop quota as 1/(N-1), but I assume nearly
everybody on this list who read his message already noticed that.
Of course Terry is correct, 1/(N+1). Look, he knows I'm quite less
than
15 matches
Mail list logo
