[EM] 01/05/03 - Two Replies for Olli:

[Donald Davison]

01/05/03 - Two Replies for Olli:

Dear Olli,

First I have a clarificaion.  In my last post on the subject of SNTV, I
should have stated that the votes of an eliminated lowest candidate would
not also be eliminated.  The votes would stay in the count of the total
party votes.  This is why my policy will elect the same candidates as
d'Hondt's SNTV.

Now, if someone were to think that my SNTV and d'Hondt's SNTV are very much
like Open Party List, they would be correct.  They are so much like Open
Party List that it may be best to use `Votes per Seat' to determine the
winners and not use my policy nor d'Hondt's.



Second reply:
   Your example of three groups with 33 1/3% each exposes the falacy of the
Droop quota.  In the event an election method should be faced with
perfection on the first count, the method should be able to handle
perfection and report out perfect results.

Hare Preference Voting can handle perfection and will report the results of
your perfect election as:
            33 1/3% A,   33 1/3% B,   33 1/3% C

But, Droop Preference Voting cannot handle perfection.  Its math will
reduce each 33 1/3% down to 25% +1.  The public should not like results of
25 A, 25 B, 25 C, and 25% excluded after they have voted a perfect:  33
1/3% A,   33 1/3% B,   33 1/3% C.

In a real Droop election the officials most likely will merely declare
A-B-C as the winners without doing the math of Droop.  In this way they can
hide the shame of the defective Droop from the public.







----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em