[EM] CVD knows little of STV it seems (Was "Let's found an organization to oppose IRV"
Craig Carey
research at ijs.co.nz
Wed Nov 8 11:08:04 PST 2000
THE CVD - THE SMALL KITTEN IN THE QUEENS ROBES
Is there anybody in the CVD that has a view other than 'the final
step is to drop in AV/IRV or STV/Choice'.
[This message could be flawed. If errors are noted then please correct
them in one way or another.]
THE CHOICE VOTING METHOD
The CVD website refers to 'Jerel Software' which is at
http://www.votingsolutions.com/
CVD View on how to count votes and decide the winner:
http://www.fairvote.org/administration/talking.htm
It says "The voting equipment does not have to transfer ballots.
Commercially available software performs the transfers. Cambridge,
MA uses software available from Jerel Software."
So it seems, at least to me, that the CVD could be uninterested in
preferential voting.
Anyway, Jerel Software (votingsolutions.com) hardly mentions the CVD
group at their website. The Votingsolutions website says "ChoicePlus
is, to our knowledge, the only computer program that has ever been used
to count a governmental election.". That seems wrong. Votingsolutions
has to be saying one of two things: the Irish and Australian governments
use the ChoicePlus software or else they count votes by hand. The CVD
trusts the agency it seems. I wonder which CVD staffer is responsible
for continually improving the Choice Vote?. I think it would be good
to have that in preparation for any court case where misleading the
government starts to come a problematic issue. Maybe some councillor
could leak the names of the CVD staffers in their hyper-secret research
division. That is too much to ask for from a oganisation that engages in
propaganda and lobbying and doesn't know much about voting.
----
The votingsolutions website appears to say that the Choice Vote method
[of the CVD] does NOT use the Droop quota for winners, with these words:
"(Note: Choice Voting is also called Preference Voting,
Single Transferable Voting, the Hare system, the
Alternative Vote, Instant Runoff Voting, and other names!)".
Reference: http://www.votingsolutions.com/choiceplusfaq.htm
I really am not sure but I thought Droop was better. I should have
numerical data that might answer that question, within months. Why
does the CVD prefer the Hare STV method. Is that a right interpretation?.
----
How big were the improvements that the CVD made to STV when copying it?:
"[The ChoicePlus program] handles ties either in the standard
Choice Voting manner, or allows other rules to take precedence."
The CVD method could be pure STV but it handles internal ties
differently. The Meek method uses a Droop Quota:
Droop := 1.0 / (Real1 (Num_Seats + 1));
...
Quota := (Total - Excess) * Droop;
(Hare has "1/NumSeats" and Droop is "1/(NumSeats + 1)"
So, I at least, suspect that the CVD has used reasoning similar to what
Mr Davison had: there is a deliberate of the method to be LESS fair
to favour some special interest group. There was bias. Droop is more
popular isn't it?. Can Mike Ossipoff find out why they prefer the Hare
quota? (unless their reasoning lacks openness and it cannot be accessed.)
It is obvious enough that the CVD is uninterested in multiwinner STV.
My voting theory says that there ought be more power given to
the transferring of papers away from winners. Use of Hare gives less
power by reducing the surpluses and increasing the quotas. So I would
prefer Droop with a belief it is nearer what proportionality and
monotonicity and truncation resistance would lead to.
I would guess that the Choice method uses Hare because there was an
intention by the CVD to bias the method, and that particular bias would,
I guess, make the method LESS fair. I do not suggest that the CVD is
corrupt because their ignorance of STV is probably so great that the
top CVD leaders do not know what fairness in its details, is.
I'll return to this matter later, but without finding out if the CVD is
trying to help Green candidates, for example. It does hint at a bit of
corruption inside the CVD. I suppose that councils can reject the
Hare Choice Vote right at the end so it could be unimportant. I don't
know. Can someone check up on whether the Choice Method of the CVD uses
the Hare quota for winners or not?, if anyone is interested.
(This is part of a data file from the votingsolutions 'cambridge' data:
001001-00-0002,10021,001,1) C13[1],C18[2],C08[3],C07[5]
001001-00-0005,10022,001,1) C13[1],C18[2],C19[3],C08[4]
001001-00-0007,10023,001,1) C18[1],C08[2]
001001-00-0009,10013,001,1) C08[1],C16[2],C05[3],C01[4],C19[5],C20[6],C18[7]
001001-00-0012,10014,001,1) C24[1],C08[2]
001001-00-0015,10017,001,1) C06[1],C20[2],C05[3],C01[4]
001001-00-0020,10015,001,1) C18[1],C08[2]
001001-00-0021,10016,001,1)
C01[1],C05[2],C23[3],C17[4],C02[5],C08[6],C20[7],C19[8],C18[9]
001001-00-0024,10012,001,1) C18[1],C13[2],C10[3],C19[4],C08[5],C21[6]
001001-00-0028,10019,001,1) C08[1],C06[2],C16[3],C20[4],C18[5]
... )
I can't believe that the CVD has much knowledge of IRV too. But they
seem to be advising as if competent. Rob Richie does seems to have the
idea "IRV is very simple" worked it. That is interesting. I wonder if
Rob Richie can comment on how many candidates are needed before we
all can get a 41% rise in support for candidate G making candidate G
switch from being a winner into a loser.
Nader is Green. Hey Ralph: the CVD wants for you a method that would
make you sometimes have to campaign for an extra 33.3%. The CVD
certainly won't be mentioning this to top politicians and journalists.
Here is my more solid 24.99% example again:
>An instance making this practical: a mayor or politician campaigns
>for themselves. That person's support rises by 24.99% of the total
>vote. The Alternative Vote makes that support rise cause a defeat.
>
>
> before after
> [1] [2]
> +----------------------+
> | AB 4997 2500 |
> | BC 2501 2501 |
> | C 2502 4999 |
> +----------------------+
> Alternate Vote, STV: C B
> IFPP: A C
> FPTP: A C
> Papers altered: (AB) (C) 2499 papers
> Total Votes: 10000 10000
>
> The alteration: (2499:AB{C+)--(2499:C{B+)
>An instance making this practical: a mayor or politician campaigns
Suppose Rob Richie or a big dumb Green candidate campaigns for
themselves
>for themselves. The public liked the campaign and 33.32% increased
>their support for the candidate, which was enough to cause the
>candidate to change from a winner into a loser.
>
> before after
> [1] [2]
> +----------------------+
> | AB 3335 1669 |
> | BA 1664 0 |
> | BC 1668 3332 |
> | C 3333 4999 |
> +----------------------+
> Alternate Vote, STV: C B
> IFPP: A C
> FPTP: A C
> (ba+bc): 3332 3332
>
> Papers : (AB) (C) 1666 papers
> altered : (BA) (BC) 1664 papers
>
> Total Votes: 10000 10000
---------------------------------------------------------------------
At 23:22 07.11.00 +0000 Tuesday, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>Our little IRVies have been very busy. And very numerous. Who has
>time to answer all their bullshit articles? Who has time to actually
>speak against each one of their proposals to enact their nonreform,
>all around the country?
>
>It would take at least a few people, dividing the work. Our
>anti-IRvie organization wouldn't have to as big as CVD, of course.
>Each person added would significantly decrease the work per person.
>Even a few people could make the job feasible.
>
>Would anyone like to help me found a national organization to
>prevent the enactment of IRV in the U.S.?
>
>Mike Ossipoff
Thanks Mr Ossipoff for bringing the topic up. I could offer my list
but people over there would uphold truncation resistance I hope.
E-mail: Craig Carey <research at ijs.co.nz> (backup terratope at yahoo.com)
Auckland, NZ. | Snooz Metasearch: http://www.ijs.co.nz/info/snooz.htm
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list