[EM] Candidate vote transfer p.r. method, 16 Jan 2000
David Catchpole
s349436 at student.uq.edu.au
Sun Jan 23 21:52:03 PST 2000
Que wha...? OK... what purpose does this serve, making comments about
other members of the list, some of which are dubious, to say the least
(though yes, Demorep is indeed a woman, and came out as one in the first
few weeks of the list).
How about everyone spill the beans about their personal background? Mine's
definitely not exciting... 20 year old 4th year Bachelor of Science /
Bachelor of Arts student at University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane,
Australia, lives in Redcliffe, a satellite city of Brisbane. Commutes by
public transport. Both parents doctors in public service, father an
administrator, mother an internal occupational health and safety medical
officer at an large hospital and district. Member, Australian Labor
Party. Member, Queensland Young Labor Left Faction. Member, Australian
Republican Movement. Attended Catholic primary school and Anglican high
school. Has chronic pain in left leg. Whoah.
Silly Hare vs. sublime Droop again. Craig's almost afforded a really good
beginning argument against Hare in the two-candidate example. However, D's
recent brief description of a system which is indeed an improvement on a
plain SNTV/List system and which could be easily applied where these
systems already existed, for instance Scandinavia, Japan, shouldn't be
knocked down because she's a Hareite and maybe even had a mental
breakdown in some point of her life (whoah!).
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Craig Carey wrote:
>
> Theorem 1.
>
> For those subscribers that haven't figured this out, Demorep1 (a Russian
> female former FAPSI signals agent suddenly forced out later hospitalised
> in a Cuban psychiatric hospital), has
> "not finished testing"
> the "DEMREP1 17 Jan 2000 low tech method" quoted below.
>
>
> Proof of theorem 1:
>
> Here's an extract of the text of the document:
>
> >[(f) If a candidate has a number of votes more than the total votes for all
> >candidates divided by N (rounded up if a fraction), then the excess votes
> >over such ratio shall be transferred to the highest remaining candidate on
> >his/her list (starting with the candidate with the highest excess votes).]
> >
> >(g) The candidate with the lowest number of votes shall lose and have his/her
> >votes transferred to the highest remaining candidate on his/her list.
> >
> >(h) The preceding [2 steps] [step] shall be repeated until there are N
> >remaining candidates (who shall be elected).
>
>
> Suppose that there is exactly ONE candidate and that single candidate was
> the best man to usher in a new age of joy and reward to the membersof of
> the leglislative chamber. The method is strictly applied....
>
> Step (f) -- Surely N equals 1 if there is an analogy with the Droop quota
> for transferring supluses of winners in STV. If N equals 1, this step
> does nothing, since DEMOREP1 used a ">", rather than a ">=", and since
> there is no rounding.
> The number would not be a Hare quota since surely DEMOREP1 would have
> written (N+1).
> The number N could be the number of seats that remain to be filled at
> each stage, or it could be the total number of winners that need to be
> found.
> The lack of definition alone ought be enough to allow the method to be
> fully discarded by competent legislative assemblies using FPTP,
> especially given that DEMOREP1 wrote:
> "it would generally require computer voting." (computers can't
> cope with vagueness unless doing symbolic computations or statistical
> computations, or whatever.
>
> Step (g) -- DEMOREP1 elminates the last candidate before having picked
> one. This is not all a new feature to [DEMOCRAP, substitute here]
> methods. (I have pointed this out before to the list but perhaps you
> did not realize I was commenting on one of your own methods).
>
> Step (h) -- N is still 1 isn't it?. I suppose so,control transfers to
> clause f of the document.
>
> Step f -- Even if the votes were transferred into bin, the inequality
> is still of a nature that causes clause f to do nothing.
>
> Step g -- There are no candidates so step g does nothing
>
> Step h -- For the first time, we can see that the method loops infinitely.
>
>
>
> Corollary 1: Demorep1 at aol.com is informing the list of untested methods.
>
>
>
> Dear DEMOREP1, could you please make all your messages have lines that do
> not have spaces betweeen each line. I request no double spacing. If the
> handling of double spacing is not under your control, could take control.
>
> My motice is that I like to see twice as much at a single glance.
>
> The Canadian list's readers might have the concern about double spaced
> lines. A vote is not I don't suggest a vote on this, but the re instead
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 11:43 17.01.00 , DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
> >Candidate vote transfer p.r. method, 16 Jan 2000
> >by Demorep1 at aol.com
> >
> >(a) The following shall apply in the election of the N members of legislative
> >bodies.
> >
> >(b) The number of districts (if any) shall be N divided by [5] (rounded up if
> >a fraction).
> >
> >(c) Each district (if any) shall be [formed at least [252] days before the
> >election], square, contiguous and contain the same number of electors (plus
> >or minus [1] percent) who voted at the last regular general election for the
> >legislative body, as nearly as possible.
> >
> >(d) Each candidate shall submit a public vote transfer rank order list [of
> >all the other candidates] at least [7] days before the election day.
> >
> >(e) Each elector may vote for 1 candidate.
> >
> >[(f) If a candidate has a number of votes more than the total votes for all
> >candidates divided by N (rounded up if a fraction), then the excess votes
> >over such ratio shall be transferred to the highest remaining candidate on
> >his/her list (starting with the candidate with the highest excess votes).]
> >
> >(g) The candidate with the lowest number of votes shall lose and have his/her
> >votes transferred to the highest remaining candidate on his/her list.
> >
> >(h) The preceding [2 steps] [step] shall be repeated until there are N
> >remaining candidates (who shall be elected).
> >
> >[(i) Each legislator shall have a voting power in the legislative body (and
> >its committees) equal to the final number of votes that he/she finally
> >receives).]
> >---
> >Use (i) to get more exact proxy representation (especially if the total
> >votes/N ratio is low and especially if (f) is NOT used).
> >
> >A higher tech method would have the electors use number votes (1, 2, etc.)
> >for their choices of candidates and vote transfers (with possibly a YES/NO
> >vote on the candidates for tiebreaker purposes) but it would generally
> >require computer voting.
>
>
> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
>
>
> At 12:58 08.October.99 , DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
> >A simple p.r method for low tech/ no tech areas (and possibly for so-called
> >high tech areas) ----
> >
> >A. Each voter may vote [X vote] for any legislative body candidate.
> ...
> >C. The N candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be elected.
> >
> >[Option- the candidate with the lowest number of votes shall repeatedly lose
> >until there are only N candidates remaining who shall be elected.]
> >
> ...
> >Almost anything must be done to get indirect Democracy into the U.S.A,
> >Canada, the U.K. House of Commons, India, etc. before lunatic/ extremist
> >indirect minority rule gerrymander politician- legislators cause major local,
> ...
>
>
> You can see that in about 8 October 1999, DEMOREP1 was using 'equality'
> in the candidate discarding step which later became a key component of
> the infinite loop. The next message is where I point out that a method
> for state legislatures should be able to elect the right number of
> winners when the number of winners equals the number of candidates.
>
> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
>
> At 14:13 29.12.99 , Craig Carey wrote:
> >At 15:53 24.12.99 , DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
> >
> >This method is untested or badly designed.
> >
> >Suppose there is only 1 candidate and only 1 member needs to be elected
> > in the region (R = 1).
> >
> >>A low tech (repeat, low tech) legislative body p.r. election method.
> >>
> >>If p.r. is to be used to elect a state legislature ...
> ...
>
> >>At Large
> >>
> >>(a) Each elector may vote for 1 candidate.
> >>(b) Before the election starts, each candidate may submit a rank order list
> >>of the other candidates.
> >>(c) The candidate with the lowest number of votes shall lose and shall have
> >>his/her votes transferred to the remaining unelected candidate highest on
> >>his/her rank order list (if any).
> >>[(d) Any candidate having more than the total votes divided by R shall be
> >>elected and ...
> >
> ...
>
> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
>
> In your 4 December 1998 example, you seemed to understand the problem:
>
> At 12:53 04.December.98 , DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
> >Mr. Lytton wrote in part--
> ...
> >Proxy p.r. constitutional language-
> >
> >(a) An Elector may vote for 1 or more legislative candidates on the ballots in
> >a district (plus not more than [2] write-in votes) by voting "1", "2" and so
> >forth for his or her first, second and so forth choices. (b) If there are more
> >than [5] candidates (or remaining candidates) in the district, then the
> >candidate having the lowest number of votes shall be a losing candidate. (c)
> >Each vote for a losing candidate shall be transferred to the Elector's next
> >choice (if any) who is a remaining candidate in the district. (d) The 2 prior
> >steps shall be repeated until there are [5] remaining candidates in the
> >district who shall be elected. (e) A lottery shall be held if tie votes occur
> >in any step. (f) Each member of a legislative body (or his or her replacement)
> >shall have a voting power in the legislative body and its committees, in
> >person or by written proxy, equal to the votes that the member finally
> >receives in the Election. (g) Example-
> ...
>
> >MMP results in the party votes/party seats ratios being unequal between the
> >parties (especially for a low number of seats won). See
> >http://www.election.govt.nz/summary.html
> >(New Zealand 1996 MMP election data as of Dec. 1997)
> >
> >Close is good enough in horseshoe games but not public elections involving the
> >fate of everyone on the planet.
> >
> Are you going to start testing your methods?
>
>
> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
>
> This is the earliest appearance of DEMOREP1's idea of making a candidate
> that ought win, a loser.
> That is done in step "7", below (e.g. no. winners = no. candidates = 1)
>
>
> At 09:33 16.May.99 , DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
> >A one district proportional representation method for a legislative body (for
> >folks not wanting districts or surplus fractional vote transfers) ----
> >
> >1. Candidates get listed in an election pamplet by a nominating petition only
> >(no primaries- no party lists).
> >
> >2. Each candidate would have his/ her rank order list of other candidates
> >(who would receive his/ her surplus votes for step 6 below) put in the
> >pamphlet.
> >
> >3. On the election ballots a voter would write in (or type in on a computer
> >screen) each candidate's pamphlet number.
> >
> >4. A voter could number rank (1, 2, etc.) his/ her choices.
> >
> >5. Each candidate getting a Droop (? Hare) Quota of votes would be elected.
> >
> >6. Each candidate getting more than a Hare (? Droop) Quota of votes would
> >transfer the surplus votes (using the above rank order list for remaining
> >candidates) (i.e. no fractional vote transfers of surplus votes).
> >
> >7. The candidate with the lowest number of votes would lose and have his/ her
> >votes transferred according to each voter's next choice of remaining
> >candidates. Presumably the voters of each party would vote for the other
> >candidates of such party.
> >
> >8. Repeat until all seats are filled.
> >
> >9. If exact results are needed (especially for legislative bodies with a
> ...
> >Very large legislative bodies (i.e. 435 seats in U.S. House of
> >Representatives, etc.) are mob rule scenes such that perhaps the number of
> >seats can be greatly reduced.
>
> Irrespective of how Senators mob together, they like counting of results
> to complete.
>
>
> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
>
> This is an example of about a single e-mail reader window of
> double spaced lines (768 pixels high):
>
>
> From: DEMOREP1 at aol.com
> Message-ID: <f3.4ce63d.25ba1914 at aol.com>
> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:18:28 EST
> ...
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
> Contact: Paul Hrabal, CEO
>
> (916) 797-7443 or paul at govote.com
>
>
> > E-Voting Starts Monday
>
> > First Binding Internet Elections In History
>
> > Internet Voting Lets Alaskan Voters in Remote Region Participate in Straw
>
> > Poll
>
> > Juneau, Alaska - January 20, 2000. The first binding internet election in
>
> > history will take place January 24, 2000. With sponsorship by a web
>
> > company named GoVote.com and new technology making it possible, over three
>
> > thousand registered Republicans in districts 36, 37 and 38 - a region
>
> > accessed mostly by seaplane, snowmobile or dog sled -- will be able to
>
> > cast their ballot.
>
> > The Monday election determines who will go to the Republican National
>
> > Convention on behalf of Alaskan Republican voters, and, consequently, who
>
> > Alaskan voters nominate for the Republican presidential candidacy.
>
> > GoVote.com's sponsorship of the Alaska poll is part of the company's push
>
> > to make politics more accessible. Tens of thousands of people per day come
>
> > to GoVote.com for answers and updates about the presidential candidates.
>
>
> ----------------
>
> I hint to the list administrator or else the list that the name
> "DEMOREP1 at aol.com" be blocked from posting to the mailing list.
>
> I suppose DEMOREP2 at aol.com would be fine with me. I really doubt that
> anonymity is necessary. Is this list is to be a corner for dunces, that
> need or receive anonymity?.
>
> Arguments for that can easily be made for sure, but readers may want to
> restrict those arguments so that they only come from DEMOREP1 herself
> (I guess).
>
> I suppose Demorep1 could be a former Russian female retired FAPSI signals
> agent that monitored US advancements on political theory and how to
> reform the Duma (ever a threat to FAPSI equivalent of the NSA), and is
> now, in yr 2000, posting from an old Russian clone 486 with assistance
> from the orderlies (what are they like over there?).
>
> I welcome corrections to this message (post to the list, if you wish).
>
>
>
> Mr G. A. Craig Carey, research at ijs.co.nz
> Auckland, New Zealand.
> Snooz Metasearch: <http://www.ijs.co.nz/info/snooz.htm>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------
Nothing is foolproof given a talented fool.
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list