[EM] Replies to Craig Carey and David Catchpole

[Donald E Davison]

Greetings,

Craig Carey wrote:
>STV is just the STV method isn't it. It is not all that proportional.

Dear Craig: Yes, I agree with you.

Craig: The lower the 'quota for winners', the more proportional STV would be(?).

Donald: No, the lower the quota, the less proportional STV will be. Are you
quoting someone here? I hope it is not me. I don't think I ever made the
mistake of saying that. If so, please tell me which of my posts contains
that error.

Craig: Droop-STV has a smaller quota for winners than Hare-STV, so it is
more proportional (is there an error here?).

Donald: Again, No, it is not more proportional. Yes, there is an error here.

Craig: Previously the test was 'vote wastage', which is different (isn't it?).

Donald: Vote wastage is a result of a method being less proportional.
Wastage can be used as an indicator of trouble in a method.

Craig:
>  +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
>  |   It would be 'unethical' to promote any method except the best   |
>  +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

Donald: Yes, I agree. We should all be willing to evaluate the flaws of
different methods and then try to determine which is the best.

Craig: This is similar, but vote wasting has been replaced with
proportionality. The two are not the same and neither are defined.

Donald: I presented vote wasting to make people aware that something was
amiss with a method. Less proportionality is the something that is amiss
with the Droop STV method

Craig: If you have in mind some little sample elections that test methods'
proportionality then perhaps you could give them.

Donald: Yes, I do have `some little sample election' in mind, and I will
give it.
     Suppose an association of 120 persons is having its election for board
of directors. There are ten candidates running to fill five seats. The
election method is STV with random transfer of ballots.
     Further suppose that the voters know all the ten candidates well
enough to rank all ten, and that all voters do rank all ten. I know this is
ideal, but it removes the influence of exhausted votes, because there will
be no exhausted ballots. I am willing to compare Hare and Droop without
exhausted votes, but in a real election the Droop will have more exhausted
ballots because there will be more transferring of ballots. The number of
possible exhausted ballots is depended directly on the number of ballots
transferred.
     Anyway, if this election is conducted using Hare Quota, the quota will
be 24 votes, and the results will be five candidates elected with 24 votes
each.
     This is an ideal PR election. Every vote ended up on one or another of
the winning candidates. Every elected member received the same number of
votes, a number which is an equal portion of the total votes.
     Now, if this election is conducted using Droop Quota, the quota will
be 21 votes, and the results will be five candidates elected with 21 votes
each.
     But, this is not an ideal election. Not all votes ended up on one or
another of the winning candidates, 15 were wasted. While every elected
member did receive the same number of votes, that number is not an equal
portion of the total votes.
     If we were to regard the ideal election as a 100, then this Droop STV
election example would be 88, (105/120).

Craig: How much better is Hare than Droop?

Donald: In this example, Hare is `exactly' 14.3% better than Droop (15/105).

David Catchpole wrote: "I challenge you to come up with a scenario where
Droop does worse than Hare for some measure of proportionality."

Dear David Catchpole, I accept the challenge. The above example is my
scenario in which Droop does worst than Hare. (Your challenge did not
deserve a separate post)

Back to Craig,
Craig: I'll repeat this, and it wasn't replied to.
>
>(1) 'Hare' : (A B C D E F G H I J K L M), Winner = {E,G,L,M}, Satisf.=323/8192
>(2) 'Droop': (A B C D E F G H I J K L M), Winner = {C,D,E,L}, Satisf.=897/4096
>
>In this example, Hare-STV gets an extra winner at the very end, but it
> became insensitive to the voter intent in the middle.

Donald: One beauty of being on a list is that anyone is allowed to reply to
any post or to any question, but a second beauty is that no one is required
to reply to any post, nor to any question.
     Maybe no one replied to your example because they did not feel they
could improve on what you had presented - or maybe no one understood it. I
have had many posts that did not receive a reply and many questions that
did not receive an answer. This is something we must accept. A list is
still the best forum to discuss anything.

Craig: What has PR got to do with STV?

Donald: This remark of yours does a very good job of explaining the
position of people who support STV, Droop, etc.
     It should also be the position of people who support PR.
     What has STV got to do with PR?  STV could do more.
     On that note, I will close this letter.

Donald,


   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                         Q U O T A T I O N                         |
   |  "Democracy is a beautiful thing,                                 |
   |       except that part about letting just any old yokel vote."    |
   |                            - Age 10                               |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

                            N E W S L E T T E R

                    Worldwide Direct Democracy Newsletter
                     Four Issues per Year by Postal Mail
             Cost per year: Czech Republic 200 Kc,  Europe 12 DM
                          Outside of Europe  $10

              Make check payable to: Mr. Bohuslav Binka
              Mail to:  Mr. Bohuslav Binka
                        Bellova 15
                        Brno 623 00
                        Czech Republic
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                         N E W    D E M O C R A C Y
              A Source of Study Material for Political Change

                        http://www.mich.com/~donald
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -