[EM] IFPP axioms; Fixing STV's monotonicity-ish failure

[Craig Carey]

At 11:17 22.09.99 +0100, Wiseman, Julian wrote:
 >See the "Note of Reservation" by Lord Alexander of Weedon QC in the Report
 >Of The Independent Commission on the Voting System,
 >(http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/chap-9.htm#c9-a).
 >His comments are about 'small-STV', called AV, but the point is equally

one winner

 >applicable.
 >
:Indeed, Lord [Alexander] almost but not quite manages to conclude that
 >non-monotonic systems have embedded randomness -- something not widely
 >acknowledged.
 >

*********************************************************************

I have put online a new page. It is on IFFP and it axioms and STV.
There is a derivation (outline) of IFPP and miscellaneous comments.

http://www.ijs.co.nz/ifppvote.htm

There is a comment on a numerical example given by Lord Alexander.

It is somewhat a just statement of my opinions, and partial in
  its viewpoint. There is enough there to allow any professor or
  whatever, to advance the theory as their own (sounds like the
  probability and electoral reformer would tweak and improve STV).

What of the incumbent mayors that should have won but lost under
  STV?.

I am looking for to getting no reply from Mike Ossipoff, after my
  excessive last message.

*********************************************************************


 >-----------------------------------------------
 >Julian D. A. Wiseman, http://www.jdawiseman.com
 >
 >
 >
 >> -----Original Message-----
 >> From:	Markus Schulze [SMTP:schulze at sol.physik.tu-berlin.de]
 >> Sent:	Wednesday, September 22, 1999 10:01 AM
 >> To:	election-methods-list at eskimo.com
 >> Subject:	Re: [EM] Proportional preferential voting
 >>
 >> Dear Craig,
 >>
 >> I haven't yet understood the intention of your mails.
 >> To help me understand your thoughts, I want to ask you
 >> to give an explicit example where -to your opinion-
 >> a plain vanilla STV method leads to a problematic
 >> or unjustifiable result. And I want to ask you to
 >> explain why this result is problematic or unjustifiable
 >> to your opinion.
 >>
 >> Markus Schulze
 >>