[EM]

[Bart Ingles]

I think most negative references on this list were toward the California
LWV study, although there may have been some expressions of pessimism
that the national study might be conducted in a similar fashion.

I am still attempting to participate in the study, so I don't want to
deride it too much yet, but I am becoming disillusioned.  Suffice it to
say that when I joined, I was under the impression that this was to be
an actual study of election systems, and not just a 'step toward Choice
Voting', as you put it.

Incidentally, I was under impression that Choice Voting was a
multi-winner system synonymous with STV.  If so, I don't think there has
been much negative comment on this list about that system.  Most
negative comments on this list have been directed toward single-winner
IRV.  The two have different goals -- STV was designed to provide for
proportional representation, in situations where a certain amount of
'slop' is acceptable regarding the actual popularity of the individual
candidates elected.  When filling a legislature, you don't have all your
eggs in one basket, as you do when electing a chief executive.


I will second Mike Ossipoff's reading recommendation.  The book:

  Making Multicandidate Elections More Democratic
  Samuel Merrill, III
  1988, Princeton University Press

is well written, and gives an excellent overview of voting systems from
an academic viewpoint.  If all you have read up to now have been
advocacy-type materials, it should be quite a change.  There is some
math, but mainly confined to footnotes and appendices.  Also, the book
is quite balanced -- he doesn't burn on IRV the way we do on this list,
for example, although Condorcet advocates might be less than satisfied. 
It's out of print, but any public or university library should be able
to find a copy.

Also, I believe Discover Magazine is doing an article or articles on
voting systems in its November issue.  It might be worth watching for.

Regards,
Bart Ingles





JanetRAnderson wrote:
> 
> May I interrupt your discussion for a moment to ask a couple of questions?
> 
> (I currently chair Washington Citizens for Proportional Representation and I
> believe this list began from our Web site.  I have been a silent member of
> the list for the last couple of months, just to see what was going on.)
> 
> I am disturbed by the negative references to CVD and the League of Women
> Voters new national study.  I am trying to influence the content of the
> latter.  Could you put in simple, layman's words (not formulas), what is so
> bad about IRV for single winner offices?  Are you so adamant in your
> opposition that you will actively and publicly oppose any tiny steps toward
> Choice Voting that those of us working in the education trenches try to
> make?
> 
> I am a teacher and strong supporter of STV.  If there is something better,
> that you can make understandable to me, and that I can help make
> understandable to others, I'd like to hear about it on or off the list..
>  Thank you.
> JanetRAnderson at msn.com
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Craig Carey" <research at ijs.co.nz>
> To: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 11:02 PM
> Subject: [EM] Papers are voters: asserting aspects of voters
> 
> > I ask subscribers to regard this as a puzzle that I haven't understood.
> > Yet there seems to be little stated concern that the list is less than
> > what subscribers might want or hope for.
> >