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

[David Catchpole]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Craig Carey wrote:

> 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.

What I meant was that you almost afforded a good argument with the
one-candidate example (almost, as it should have been two, because a
Hareite would simply say that since there was only one candidate, the Hare
quota was obviously filled).(more further down)

> 
> >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.

D's system is on her own admission flawed, but it was put on this list
(not for the first time) because candidate transfer rules could be a
useful expedient in reform.(more further down)

> 
> 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.

Jeez. You should see Japan's SNTV system and the way it operates! SNTV is,
basically, a cross between a list system and first past the post. Each
voter recieves only one vote in a district and the winners are those with
successively higher votes. SNTV is semi-proportional and is only so
because of the way parties and candidates react to it, by avoiding
splitting the vote, by handing out randomly sorted how-to-vote cards,
etc. As you can see (I hope) any transfer mechanism added to this would be
better than none.

> 
> 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?.
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------------------------------------
Nothing is foolproof given a talented fool.