[EM] STV when applied to choosing pizza toppings

[raphfrk at netscape.net]

 From: nathanlarson3141 at gmail.com
 > Does anyone have any comments in reference to this critique of STV as
 > applied to choosing three pizza toppings? The issue is whether it's fair 
 > to transfer the surplus votes from the winners before transfering votes 
 > from the losers. 
 
 In PR-STV, the number of wasted votes is reduced to
 
 1/(Seats+1).
 
 In your example, there are 156 votes. This means that the number
 of wasted/disenfranchised voters is at most
 
 156/3 = 52
 
 The cost to "buy" a seat is always one Droop quota so it is fair
 to everyone. The fact that it eliminates candidates last is actually 
 a good thing for them as it allows candidates receive transfers so they 
 can reach the quota.
 
 >> Those 56 NAP
 >> members who didn't vote pepperoni first may ALL have voted (yuk)
 >> anchovies as their second choice  
 But by not doing that the mushroom and onion voters got their first choice.
 I am not sure it is fair to call them disenfranchised.
 
 The fact that STV doesn't look at later choices is considered a feature called
 "later no harm". This means that ranking later candidates can never hurt
 your higher choices. This allows voters give their full list without fear that
 they will hurt their first choice.
 
 
  Raphfrk
 --------------------
 Interesting site
 "what if anyone could modify the laws"
 
 www.wikocracy.com    
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20061113/4d9b0443/attachment-0003.htm>