[EM] STV and having quotas to eliminate losers

[David Catchpole]

On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Craig Carey wrote:

> I note that applying quotas to losers (with a different quota at each
>  eleimination stage), wouldn't fix the problem where votes are wasted
>  because of transfer values. Under that consideration, STV is more
>  like FPTP than it need be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------
> ADDITIONAL:
> 
> At 15:07 11.10.99 , David Catchpole wrote:
> >I expressed a "criterion" or "modification" in the message which applies
> >generally. The use of W' is this- consider system W and schema V. Take all
> >proper subsets of candidate lists for V. Is there an electoral system W'
> >such that W' of V is independent of the removal of irrelevant alternatives
> >to W of any proper subset? If so, then W must be such an electoral system.
> 
> A note to Mr Catchpole: The reformulation of IIA now has these
>  words: "removal of irrelevant alternatives". What is wrong with
>  the word "loser", and the word "preference", and "candidate"?.
> 
>  The IIA theory collapsed over a tiny 5 voter example, and while
>  there may be a few more IIA versions not yet released, surely
>  the idea doesn't need the garb of incomprehensible English that
>  is so vague that none can be sure whether they could translate
>  it into a logic expression in a fully correct way?, something
>  that is accessible to the intellience of all?.

I might remind you that (P1) did precisely the same thing.