[EM] STV is suppose to be a PR method.

[Craig Carey]

Wasted Votes & Hare STV

At 22:45 24.10.99 , Donald E Davison wrote:
...
>
>     STV is suppose[d] to be a method of Proportional Representation(PR),
>which the dictionary defines as: "an electoral system designed to represent
>in a legislative body each political group or party in proportion to its
>actual voting strength in the electorate."

STV is just the STV method isn't it.
It is not all that proportional. The lower the 'quota for winners', the
 more proportional STV would be(?). Droop-STV has a smaller quota for
 winners than Hare-STV, so it is more proportional (is there an error here?).
 Previously the test was 'vote wastage', which is different (isn't it?).


>          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>                         N E W    D E M O C R A C Y

>    I can say the same in a more mathematical form: "If a group receives
>one percent of first choices, in the entire election, that group shall be
>able to elect one member per hundred members of the legislative body." This
>form allows us to pin down the results of an election and subject them to
>an evaluation.

>      It follows that a[n] Eight Percent Group will elect eight members per
>hundred member, and a Forty-Eight Percent Group will elect forty-eight
>members per hundred.


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

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

      
>     If you do not believe in this policy, then you have no business
>claiming to support PR. If you do believe in this policy, then you have no
>business supporting features and actions that make a system less
>proportional.

That is the first use of the word "policy". How did you get to the idea,
 "policy"?. What is the "policy"?. What is the definition of a "belief".
Policies are something that can be photocopied or else (or else there
 might be an Information Ombusdman investigation).


>     There are people who support small district STV and/or Droop Quota
>and/or exhausted ballots being given to the remaining candidates. These
>three features make STV less proportional. One or more of them would not


This is similar, but vote wasting has been replaced with proportionality.
The two are not the same and neither are defined. If you have in mind some
 little sample elections that test methods' proportionality then perhaps
 you could give them.

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.


>allow the Eight Percent Group to elect any members, but they would allow
>the Forty-Eight Percent Group to elect fifty-eight members per hundred.
>     Do you fear it is necessary to give the larger political parties
>something in order to get them to come on board for PR?  Sort of like,
>"Tossing a bone to the dogs". Better to have some reform than none at all -
>right?

What has PR got to do with STV?.

>     Wrong!  Your fears are unfounded. There are people in the world who

People don't believe that Droop is more tailored for their corruption, yet.


>have voted into law, election systems better than Droop STV, and the people
>in your part of the world can do the same. MMP, while not perfect, is
>better than Droop STV.

The message that seemed to be at the start this topic, was one that
 referred to Meek-STV: "Meek style STV - Part One of Two", 13-14 October
 1999. I note that that message indicated that Mr Stephen Todd (Electoral
 Reform Society (UK)) was using a computer program. I reproduce part of
 that message:

>"Notes
>
>1.      In the above description, and in the computer output that
>follows, keep values and numbers of votes are rounded to just 3 or 4
>figures after the decimal point, but it should be noted that the actual
>calculations, within the computer, are made to a much greater accuracy."

Can Mr Davison use a program too, and prove Hare-STV is better?.
(Random numbers)

I have a question to and for, Donald Davison:

      How much better is Hare than Droop? (exactly, how much better?)

Suppose the virtue (with respect to vote wasting) is: d, h, t for
 Droop-STV, Hare-STV, and FPTP respectively.

What is d/t and h/t?.

Make the number of winners and losers may range from 1 to 20, and take
 quite integral values.

Since a method that minimizes vote wastage may not be one that maximizes
 proportionality, how do you define both those?, etc.

What obstacles would you have in numerically resolving the question:
 Does Hare-STV waste less votes that Droop-STV?.


...
>Regards,
>Donald