[EM] Diana asked about Craig Carey:

[Donald Davison]

Diana wrote: "Talking of Craig Carey, can someone please explain what his
most recent diatribe was on about?  And whether it's worth my while
worrying about?  (Since he's thrown Markus out of his private party -- at
least that's how it appears to outsiders -- I'd like to know whether he
actually has a point or is just excellent at posturing.)"  Diana.


Dear Diana, Donald here, there are a number of persons on this list who
speak in gobbledegook.  Craig Carey is one of them, so if you don't
understand him, you can be pretty sure no one else does, but there will
come a time when these types of people will write something that is
understandable and that will be the time when you can learn where that
person is coming from, if he has a point, and if he is worth worrying
about.

Craig Carey has given himself away in the past and most likely will do so
again in the future, merely by writing something that is understandable.  I
can give you an example.

Craig has designed an election method, which he calls: `The Two Seat -
Three Candidate Method' and which he claims to be a variant of STV, you can
decide that.  Anyway it works as follows:  Ranked ballots, Droop quota,
first candidate with quota or quota plus surplus is elected to one of the
seats, then this candidates' quota and surplus are both transferred to the
next preferences. (Note: This method won first prize in a contest for best
variant of STV, a contest conducted by Craig on Craig's list.)

Can you see the problem here?  The quota that elected one member is now
being used to help elect the second member, or in other words, one quota
plus one vote has the power to elect both seats.  The other two near quotas
do not elect anyone.  This super-duper method by Craig is worst than
Plurality-at-Large, which would need fifty percent plus one to elect both
candidates.  I called him on this flaw in his method, but it was water off
a duck's back, he kept on promoting his method.

Craig is not alone in this lack of understanding of election methods.  On
the IRV list, someone asked if IRV could be used to elect two members to a
city council.  Dan, who is an official of the Center for Voting and
Democracy replied and suggested that IRV be run two times. Once to elect
one member and a second time to elect the second member, bypassing the name
of the first winner during the routine of the second run of IRV.

Dan is clearly showing that he does not understand how these election
methods work.  What he suggested is very close to Plurality-a-Large, that
is, the same majority gets to elect both members.

Anyway, if you chose not to read Craig's posts, you won't miss much, but on
the other hand, if you have time to kill (good for people who like their
time to be dead), you could skim over his posts seeking the rare moment
when a star will appear in the east and you will see something
understandable (wear your sunglasses, the glare is quite bright), then and
only then will you be able to look into that window to Craig's mind.

Are you strong enough for this???


Regards, Donald