[EM] CVD knows little of STV it seems (Was "Let's found an or ganization to oppose IRV"

[LAYTON Craig]

Hi Craig,

>[This message could be flawed. If errors are noted then please correct
>them in one way or another.]

I'll accept your invitation

>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.

I just think this is a funny way of phrasing it.  I'm sure that it is
preferential.  Otherwise, how could the 'software perform the transfers'?

>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?.

There is a terminology breakdown in relation to STV methods.  From this
(I've not yet looked at the website) I would assume it is talking about
single winner systems only.  The Hare system is a term traditionally used to
describe simple IRV - it does not mean multi-winner STV with quotas.
Australian voting theorists tend not to use the term Hare at all, because it
is confusing.  Multi-winner STV with a quota is called Hare-Clarke /
Hare-Clark (I can't remember the spelling).  If I remember my voting history
correctly, Hare basically developed IRV, and Clarke applied this to a
multi-winner system (I'm unsure of this).  The Hare quota was initially used
(Hare, from Hare-Clarke), but now, at least in Australia, the droop quota is
used, but it is still called Hare-Clarke.  The term Hare is roughly
equivalent to the term STV - it can be used for any voting system in the STV
family.

I agree that the droop quota is better, but I don't think that they have
streched their brains as far as multi-winner systems.  You're expecting too
much.

>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.

I think that they do count their votes by hand in Ireland (because they use
a random sample of votes over the quota to distribute, not fractional
values).  In Australia it is definately computer counted (for upper house
only), but I don't know about software.  I suspect it is software that the
Australian Electoral Commission developed themselves.  If you're really
interested, it might be worth checking out their website (I think it is
www.aec.gov.au, but I'm not sure).

Craig Layton