[EM] Donald Davison asked about One Man One Vote ideal of STV

[Craig Carey]

: ____________________
:
[my private reply to Mr Davison's question to EML, which was sent while
I was not subscribed:]
...
: >[EM] Craig's Folly and Dan's Folly are two peas in a pod:
: >Donald Davison donald at mich.com
: >Mon Dec 29 22:20:13 2003
: ...
: >And Craig replied: "It does sound quite bad."
...
: >The two methods are exactly the same,
:
: A method using one set of ballot papers can't be the same as a method
: using 2 lots of ballot papers [...]

: Suppose you lived
: in a world where a lot of dumb wrong unfair preferential voting methods
: were being developed

So many names to choose from...

:    and you had to define One Man One Vote otherwise
: white facists might take over.

Donald does not reply to over 90% of my e-mail.

I might as well ask Mr Gilmour to identify the idea of preventing
ballot papers of opponents from being too powerful.

Mr Davison gets a precise definition of One Man One Vote in
2 winner 3 candidate elections.

No response returns. Obviously Mr Davision has no interest in the
ideals of the Single Transferable Vote. Nothing like that would be
said of me.

I want Mr Donald Davison to give the grounds and reasoning for
the future absence of a lucid comment on this next text that defines
One Man One Vote:

:[1]    * adding a preference to an FPTP paper does not increase the top
:[2]      power of it. E.g. the paper 5(AB) is no more powerful than
:[3]      x(A)+y(B) for SOME 0<=x,y<=5, 0<x+y<=5.

:[4]    * Similarly the same rule is repeatedly [applied].
:
: That leads to an ignoring of the surplus and a lot of new rules
: on deeming wins a losses, and it can't produce fractional transfer
: values, since proportionality tries to maximize power and make x,y
: be extremal, which is 0 or [5].


Can Mr Donald Davison comment on the 4 lines of text I wrote.
I numbered then "[1]" to "[4]".

If not, then why not, Donald ?.

I guess Mr Gilmour is just agitating for a response. I am
expectin that Mr Gilmour can sense that comments are not of
maths (and hence STV) if not really of an unsurpassably
perfect precision (well beyond what can be obtained from
using statistical data). Also the question is so easy for an STV
expert who has a feel for the topic.

The 4 lines create a test that once repaired and made well defined,
 will pass plain (2 winner 3 candidate) STV.

Mr Davison and Mr Gilmour can freely comment on the 4 line rule.

We expect a real rule that prevents a real barrier to unlimited
infinities of parameterized faulty preferential voting methods.

So far the other STV persons say, this (figuratively)

  (*) instead of viewing a night sky with 1/3 blotted out, with
      a piece of black cardboard close to the eye,
      we/you can blot out less than a minute of arc, using a
      telescope. Or like in the rolling reforms of England
      (e.g. FOI rights for govt run assassinations of royal
      kings, queens, and poodles (but not butlers which are
      left up to the residents)), if timed right then maybe a
      planet or The Moon, could cut off.

Now I again write to MR Donald Davison.

If you can't make some statement on the 4 line One Man One Vote
idea I wrote on above (and numbered) then I ask for the reasoning
for that lack of a statement.




...
:   /\
:  /  \-------
: /    \
:
:
:
:


Promotional:
Excellence in computerized preferential voting polytope
implementations: the temporal "single-transferable-vote"
mailing list (at groups.yahoo.com).







Craig Carey <research at ijs.co.nz>    Auckland, New Zealand