[EM] 12/22/02 - Markus Schulze Wrote and Wrote again:

[James Gilmour]

Adam wrote
> Markus, very good points.  You've convinced me that party list in any form
> has significant weaknesses.

Amen to that!


>  What do you think of my last comment, about
> the advantages of PAV over STV?

I searched the archive but could not find an explanation of PAV.  I found lots of
comments, but could not find the explanation or definition.


> I'd say the main advantages are twofold:
>
> - voting in PAV is unquestionably easier than STV.

>From the voter's point of view, what could be easier than "1, 2, 3, ...."?


>  For this reason, one
> could make larger districts (perhaps 7 or 8 candidate districts) without
> making the election too confusing for the voter.

Practical experience shows there is no problem with "large" districts when using
STV-PR.  Some recent posts here have included details of such implementations in
real public elections.


>  In large district STV
> elections in Australia, 95% of the voters vote for pre-determined party
> orders, which basically makes STV degenerate into closed party list.

This is not so much an effect of "large" districts, but rather an effect of the
compulsory vote and the desire of the political parties to maximise their control
over their supporters.


> - I'd argue that, when it comes down to allocating the last few candidates,
> PAV does a better job of picking the right candidates than STV.  At the
> one-candidate extreme, it's a matter of comparing approval voting to IRV.

I cannot comment as I cannot find an exposition of PAV.  But when you made your
comparison were you using "classical" STV-PR or did you consider Meek's version of
STV-PR?  What were your criteria for deciding who were "the right candidates"?

James

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em