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

[James Gilmour]

Markus had written:
>  >in my opinion, the used STV method should be able to interpret
>  >X-vote ballots appropriately. But it should not require X-vote
>  >ballots.

Craig replied:
> I agree too. An STV election ought allow voters to use a "X" instead
> of an integer. Not an integer if that paper has HTML radio buttons.
>
> A ballot like this could be handled too:
>
> ..............(1) (2) (3)
> Candidate A ...X...X
> Candidate B....X.......X
>
> Apparently in New Zealand, the courts are drifting over to taking
> interpretations that are less considerating of wordings wherever and
> more considerate of what the voter did desire. Somewhere out in the
> future, courts would allow "X"s or would want to allow them.
>
> Certainly one termporary staffer of the New Zealand Internal Affairs
> rejected the idea of "X"s saying (shorn of details) that STV did not
> do that. Internal Affairs made a decision to stuff me around over
> how to thank her for writing to (she quite) so I might post an OIA
> if I feel like it out to the agency that was attempting to shuffle
> local councils into using STV. Rod Donald never sought jail terms for
> councillors. However he did offer a lot of non-monotoncity for
> elections with more than 2 winners.

Craig, could you please clarify what you mean by "allow 'Xs' ?

Do you mean mark X against ONE candidate, to indicate a first and only preference?
Or do you think "STV" should somehow allow Xs to be marked against several
candidates?

The first is no problem except where there is an unnecessarily officious wording
and interpretation of the rules.  It has been ERS practice for 40 years to my
knowledge to accept one "X" as indicating a valid first preference in STV
elections.  If legislation specifically forces the returning officer to reject
papers marked in that way, then the legislation is at fault.  The criterion should
always be "Is the voter's intent clear?"

The second is incompatible with STV.  It may be desirable (in your view) or
operable in some other voting system, but that system will not be STV.

James

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