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

[Donald E Davison]

Greetings,                                      10/30/99

Markus Schulze wrote:
   "To my opinion, the example above questions whether
STV with the Hare Quota is really proportional." [copy below]

Dear Markus Schulze,

     Hare STV can be proportional to the final results, but no STV election
is going to be proportional to the first choices. Not even under the ideal
conditions of no exhausted ballots will STV be able to be proportional to
the first choices. It is the nature of STV that the proportionality is
changed due to the lower choices of the transferred ballots.
     It is good that you raise this point, because this is a good reason
not to use STV. Efforts should be taken to consider the first choices of
the voters. Open Party List and MMP can be proportional to the first count
of the choices.

     If your example is an One Area election, like the council of a small
city, then I would suggest that the best thing the city could do is to
increase the number of members to the even number of six. In that way the
50:50 results will be more proportional to 52:48. (52 is closer to 50 than
to 60).
     The council would need a conclusive majority of four of six votes in
order to pass any measure. The two parties would need to work together for
the good of the city, which is the way it should be.

     If your example is only one district of many, then the best these
people can do is to change the system to Open Party List, with all the
districts combined together in One Area.
     If the people require a `member link' then they can use a MMP type of
election method, but I digress.

     Getting back to your example, what you have presented is a good
example of a large group lowering their vote numbers on their candidates in
order to scam extra representation for their party. This is possible to do,
STV has this weakness, this flaw, it can be corrupted. We know this. It is
another good reason not to use STV.
     Your example is good, as far as it goes, but there are a few more
steps needed in order to show the full picture.
     The next step is that in reality, the count will not play out as you
suggest. In reality both of these large parties will be savvy to the scam
of lowering their votes, and if the 52% party is as good at scamming, they
will gain the three seats, but even then the results will still not be
proportional. Three seats is sixty percent of five, which is not 52%.
     No election method will be able to elect five members to the ratio of
52:48. Not even the infamous Droop can do that.

     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.
     Imposing the Droop into the STV election method will do the lowering
of the vote numbers for the two parties, it will be easier for them, and it
will do it with mathematical precision. This is the best reason in favor of
the Droop. If the parties are going to scam the system, and they will try,
then maybe it will be best if the Droop was added so that the uncertainty
of lowering the votes will be removed for both parties and the scamming
will be conducted with some equality. This rationalization might sway me,
except for the next step, the case of the largest party not having a
majority.

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

     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.

     STV should be rejected, it is not proportional to the first choices,
plus it has been corrupted too much.
    If you are looking for proportionality of the first choices, then you
need to look to Open Party List or MMP or some hybrid of STV/Open Party
List as your multi-seat election method.

Donald
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999,
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
From: Markus Schulze <schulze at sol.physik.tu-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: [EM] STV is suppose to be a PR method.

Dear participants,
    suppose that there are 5 seats and 100 voters so that
the Hare Quota is 20. Suppose that party A nominates
candidate A1, A2, and A3 and that party B nominates
candidate B1, B2, and B3. Suppose that every voter
makes a full ranking of all six candidates and that
52% of the voters prefer every candidate of party A
to every candidate of party B and that 48% of the
voters prefer every candidate of party B to every
candidate of party A.
  Then it could happen that candidate A1 and A2 each
get 20% of the first preferences, that candidate A3
gets 12% of the first preferences, and that candidate
B1, B2, and B3 each get 16% of the first preferences.
STV with the Hare Quota would elect candidate A1 and A2,
then eliminate candidate A3, and then elect candidate
B1, B2, and B3 so that party A gets 2 seats for 52% of
the votes and party B gets 3 seats for 48% of the votes.
  To my opinion, the example above questions whether
STV with the Hare Quota is really proportional.
Markus Schulze

   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                         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
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -