[EM] 10/30/99 - Comments on Schulze's example.

[David Catchpole]

I never feel secure these days, but tell you what, if you do believe in a
higher being, then you've got that higher being to thank for the fact that
Droop is more proportional than Hare in any proper consideration of
the relation of election _votes_ to _results_. arkus' example
(amongst many) indicates that Hare is rotten while someone (I've always
been confused when it comes to the two D's on this list) insists (but does
not demonstrate) that there is some example with Droop which does the
same. (more further down)

>      Speaking of the Droop, the next step is the Droop Quota being imposed
> on the election method. While you did not mention the Droop in your post,
> David Catchpole, who is feeling more secure these days, seems to believe
> that your example proves Droop to be God Almighty, so I need to cover the
> Droop if only to be a spoilsport to him.

Hey hey hey! (more further down)

>      You have implied in your example that the 52% block of votes should
> receive three of five seats. If so, then suppose this 52% of the voters
> split into three parties before the next election. I am justified in asking
> you to take this step because in reality all the elections around the world
> that use the Droop have more than two parties, some have a lot more than
> two. Your example of only two is not realistic.
>      Do you believe these three parties should get three of five seats?

Yes, and with Droop they will. Assume these multiple parties distribute
their preferences amongst each other. (and yes, in this case I'm
speaking Strinepolitik for "all the voters who give their highest rankings
to some member of a bloc of multiple candidates / parties also rank
all the other members of  this bloc above any other candidates)"

Now, of the 48% of voters who are not voting for the other bloc, how can
you get the 3 quotas adding up to 50% which are required to have 3 of the
5 votes? You can't- after distribution of votes, the straight preferences
assumption (which as good as any a measure of "bloc" voting, don't you
think?) leads to our 52% bloc recieving 3 out of the 5 seats.

If you don't believe me, I challenge you to come up with an _explicit_
example of the opposite occuring.

> Will not happen if we use Droop. The 48% party will get three seats.

B*******. Remember, a sentence stating your conviction and nothing else is
not an explicit example. The 48% party will certainly not recieve 3
members- it will recieve two, with two quotas adding up to 33.33% of the
vote, and the 14.66% of the vote left over will go nowhere unless some
preferences come from the 52% side- that is, if our assumption of blocs is
ignored, in which case talk about a 52% side and a 48% side is no longer
applicable. (more further down)

>      Wow, isn't that something, Droop made it possible for a minor party to
> win a majority of the seats. David Catchpole was correct, Droop is God
> Almighty.

You stop hassling Alanis. (more further down)

>      I content that this is the real reason for the use of the Droop Quota.
> It is for the purpose of helping the largest political party to gain a
> majority, even if that party may have less than a majority in popular
> votes. Droop is legal corruption.

Again, _you're talking out of your arse_. See above for additional abuse
and a demonstration of why this is the case. (more further down)

I think I can see where the confusion is arising- people are failing to
extricate the two issues of (1) the Droop wars and (2) my suggestion of an
electoral system which guarantees a majority to a government and its
allies. The two are definitely not much related. Droop per la Droop does
not lead to the case of (2), and one could as easily suggest the use
of the Hare quota for a (2) method as one could Droop. (more further down)

>      There is one more step if you like, you could try David's policy of
> only counting the votes of the largest party until that party has a
> majority. David has taken honesty to new lows and corruption to a new
> higher level.

As Cartman sez, "'Ay!" For one thing, a system which guaranteed the
people's choice of collective government is more honest than the current
parliamentary system, where we have to take it on faith that parties'
support for a government will reflect their voters' support for a
government (a faith which fails often, witness NZ1st). For another thing,
this is an incremental change which is suggested for a less-than-perfect,
pretty-averse-to-radical-changes-in-paradigms system. In my perfect world,
the elected body which would administer the executive and the body which
would legislate would be distinct (though they would meet in the same
chamber, and a member of one could be a member of the other). A system
somewhat like this operates in Greenland, of all places! (Pat Buchanan
better not invade, then). The legislative body could be
elected by PR, and the multi-member executive body could be elected by PR 
or a semi-PR system like that I suggested recently. The executive body
would elect ministers from amongst itself, etc. Well, that's my manifesto
done. (more further down)

> 
>      STV should be rejected, it is not proportional to the first choices,
> plus it has been corrupted too much.

If we insisted that only first choices were relevant, we would insist on
FPTP for single-member electorates. Witness vote "splitting" for non-STV
"PR" systems.