[EM] The Gilmour James wrote:

[Donald Davison]

Greetings List,

The Gilmour James wrote:                      14 July 2003
"We have previously debated the merits of Donald's method ("the best
method") which seems to have been devised because Donald rejects the Droop
quota."

Donald here: Yes!! I do reject the Droop quota for most elections, but I
devised my two new methods mainly to provide the voter with a method that
can handle the math of allowing the voter to rank candidates and/or parties
in any mix, but my two methods, one variant of each STV and Bottoms Up, do
have the side benefit of not containing the distortions caused by the Droop
quota.
  Besides, I do not reject the Droop quota entirely, I say it can be used
in a non-partisan election in which the jurisdiction has voted to favor the
larger factions by giving them the benefit of averaging their votes.  It
can be used in this type of an election, but only until someone comes up
with something better.

Gilmour:  "Donald also rejects the idea that the purpose of elections is to
elect."

Donald:  I fail to understand why you would say something like this.
Elections electing candidates may be the only thing that everyone on this
list will agree to and that includes me.  Are you merely talking off the
top of your head.  You can do better than that.

Gilmour:  "In previous posts he expressed great concern to see every vote
transferred to its last possible destination rather than accept that the
same winners would be elected without all that paper shuffling."

Donald:  The value of transferring every vote to its last possible
destination is that it will give us a final measure on how well the
election turned out, that is, how proportional was the results of the
election.  Supporters of the Droop quota do not want the final transfer to
take place because it will show that Droop elections are not proportional.

Gilmour:  "Most of the items in Donald's "list of distortions" in STV arise
from bad or outdated implementations or attempts at deliberate political
interference or simply inappropriate use of a voting system.  They are not
inherent defects of STV-PR."

Donald:  While the distortions may not be `inherent defects of STV-PR',
they are, never the less, part of current STV.  On the one hand you sell
people the concept of an ideal pure STV.  On the other hand you give them
distorted STV.  Your right hand doesn't know what your left hand is doing.

Gilmour:  "My principal objection to Donald's method is that it would
entrench the position of the political parties."

Donald:  If the jurisdiction of a partisan election votes to average the
votes of the political parties, then my elimination rule will do the best
averaging, better than the averaging done by Droop.  Having said that, I
fail to see how my variants would entrench the position of the political
parties.  Each voter still has the power to cross party lines when they
rank candidates and/or parties in any mix.

Gilmour:  "I support the use of STV-PR and oppose the use of all forms of
party list PR because I want to see the balance of power shifted away from
the parties in favour of the voters."

Donald:  The ranking of the candidates in STV is best, as long as the STV
maintains proportionality, if not, then Open Party List will be best over
Droop STV because at least we will have near perfect party proportionality,
which is the main purpose of PR.

Gilmour:  "I want the balance of accountable of elected members shifted from the
parties towards the electors who voted for those members."

Donald:  Again you are showing that your right hand doesn't know what your
left hand is doing.  On the one hand you profess this noble position, which
is a valid position to take, but on the other hand you support the Droop
quota, which is counter in results to your noble position.  If you do not
favor party power then you should not support the Droop quota, for Droop is
for the benefit of the parties.

Years ago I was discussing Hare vs Droop with Rob Richie, executive
director of the Center for Voting and Democracy (CV&D).  After a few
exchanges of emails, his last word on the subject to me was: `I know what
you are saying Don, but we need to give something to the larger factions in
order to get them to come on board and support election reform.'

Now, there is an honest man.  He supports Droop in STV, but he does not
pretend that his reason is noble, he does not pretend that Droop is the
best thing since sliced bread.


Regards to all, Donald









Greetings List,

The Gilmour James wrote:                      14 July 2003
"We have previously debated the merits of Donald's method ("the best
method") which seems to have been devised because Donald rejects the Droop
quota."

Donald here: No, it was devised mainly to provide the voter with a method
that can handle the math of allowing the voter to rank candidates and/or
parties in any mix, but my methods, varients of STV and Bottoms Up, do have
the side benefit of not containing the distortions caused by the Droop
quota.
  Besides, I do not reject the Droop quota entirely, I say it can be used
in a non-partisan election in which the jurisdiction has voted to favor the
larger factions by giving them the benefit of averaging their votes.  It
can be used in this type of an election, but only until someone comes up
with something better.

Gilmour:  "Donald also rejects the idea that the purpose of elections is to
elect."

Donald:  No, those words of yours are not correct, you are merely talking
off the top of your head.  I'm in favor of elections electing candidates,
that is the only point that everyone on this list does agree upon.  You
shouldn't make these types of assumptions, that is, falsely saying what
someone else accepts or rejects.  You can do better than that.

Gilmour:  "In previous posts he expressed great concern to see every vote
transferred to its last possible destination rather than accept that the
same winners would be elected without all that paper shuffling."

Donald:  The value of transferring every vote to its last possible
destination is that it will give us a final measure on how well the
election turned out, that is, how proportional was the results of the
election.  Supporters of the Droop quota do not want the final tranfer to
take place because it will show that Droop elections are not proportional.

Gilmour:  "Most of the items in Donald's "list of distortions" in STV arise from
bad or outdated implementations or attempts at deliberate political
interference or simply inappropriate use of a voting system.  They are not
inherent defects of STV-PR."

Donald:  While the distortions may not be `inherent defects of STV-PR',
they are, never the less, part of current STV.  On the one hand you sell
people the concept of an ideal pure STV.  On the other hand you give them
distorted STV.  Your right hand dosen't know what your left hand is doing.

Gilmour:  "My principal objection to Donald's method is that it would
entrench the position of the political parties."

Donald:  If the jurisdiction of a partisan election votes to average the
votes of the political parties, then my elimination rule will do the best
averging, better than the averaging done by Droop.  Having said that, I
fail to see how my variants would entrench the position of the political
parties.  Each voter still has the power to cross party lines when they
rank candidates and/or parties in any mix.

Gilmour:  "I support the use of STV-PR and oppose the use of all forms of
party list PR because I want to see the balance of power shifted away from
the parties in favour of the voters."

Donald:  The ranking of the candidates in STV is best, as long as the STV
maintains proportionality, if not, then Open Party List will be best over
Droop STV because at least we will have near perfect party proportionality.

Gilmour:  "I want the balance of accountable of elected members shifted from the
parties towards the electors who voted for those members."

Donald:  Again you are showing that your right hand doesn't know what your
left hand is doing.  On the one hand you profess this position, which is a
valid position to take, but on the other hand you support the Droop quota,
which is counter in results to your noble position.  If you do not favor
party power then you should not support the Droop quota, for it is for the
benefit of the parties.

Years ago I was discussing Hare vs Droop with Rob Richie, executive
director of the Center for Voting and Democracy (CV&D).  After a few
exchanges of emails, his last word on the subject to me was: `I know what
you are saying Don, but we need to give something to the larger factions in
order to get them to come on board and support election reform.'

Now, there is an honest man.  He supports Droop in STV, but he does not
pretent that Droop is the best thing since sliced bread.


Regards to all, Donald