[EM] Candidate vote transfer p.r. method, 16 Jan 2000

[Craig Carey]

At 18:52 24.01.00 , David Catchpole wrote:
...
>Party. Member, Queensland Young Labor Left Faction. Member, Australian
>Republican Movement. Attended Catholic ...

>
>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

I didn't give a 2 candidate example; the examples I gave had only 1 and
 6 candidates. I can't find this "almost ... good argument" and I guess
 no one can.

>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 ...
>
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Craig Carey wrote:
...

This is junk mail, Mr David Catchpole, and arrived into my e-mail reader.

You defend a Demorep1 "system" but prohibit all reasoned reply, but not
 saying which system and leving behind you sentences a trail of minute
 hints for the mathematicians to pause to analyze, on what it is that makes
 the un-named Demorep1 scheme so worth defending.

Demorep1 clearly seemed to assume STV-Droop was a feature of the "pr"
 method, yet you in this message wrote "shouldn't be knocked down because
 she's a Hareite". Did you never read what both I and Demorep1 wrote?.

The use of the words, "improvement ... for ... Japan" is suspect. Again
 no argument. The main paragraph I shall not comment because of the
 constraints of the topic of the mailing list.

Now that David has been activated again, I may as a note that I was sure
 that comments on mathematics or preferential voting would never suffice
 to stir Mr Catchpole into sending to us all his considerations of the
 moment. So what now?: nothing but detials of pure maths?.