[EM] Being unfair at the very first step: issues for Jobst Heitzig

Craig Carey research at ijs.co.nz
Mon Nov 29 21:22:01 PST 2004

At 2004-11-29 06:39  Monday, Diana Galletly wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Craig Carey wrote:
>Why?  Different methods can be used for different purposes -- does one
>seek a consensus opinion (voting on a proposal), does one wish to represent
>a wide spectrum of views (many places in an election), does one wish for
>popular leadership (chairman of a committee)?  Why should all situations
>be counted the same?  So long as the voting papers are the same, and the

I count 2 main theories: i.e. with P2, power, generalized monotonicty, and
whatever is embedded, and both with and without Truncation Resistance.

But there can many approximate methods,

You might have had a 3rd idea: this one: copying ideas from others. There
are ideas around, e.g. Malkovitche's Nanson whatever-it-was.

What can you copy that is good enough for the UK or Cambridge ?.

Perhaps nothing.

Below you say you are happy with STV. Liking STV could involve copying.

I can post in a quite definition of what copying ideas involves.

Just after I unsubscribe, members can start copying from Mr Heitzig.

Fairness is much of the whole topic here (excluding Approval), and it is

   just a word that I use

and that

   people like Mr Heitzig and Eppley have the willpower to avoid.

   That raises a neat little question: What of Mr Jobst Heitzig's will
    or willpower ?.
   He would stick with fairness definition irrespective of the difficulty
    of the mathematics that would result.

   He could post up some of this algebra that he got stuck on.
   But I guess the man in Germany would want to keep secret, evidence
   that he started from fairnes, and then moved through all the algebra
   that results.

>voters can comprehend what it is they have to do to express their feelings
>meaningfully, what does it matter if different voting systems are used in
>different circumstances?  The acid test is what one is attempting to
>You seem so concerned by your belief that others do not do research
>(whereas you presumably do?); unfortunately one of the realities in
>getting funding to do research (at least, here in the UK) is that one
>be able to present one's results in a form that is easily comprehensible
>by others and thus will contribute to the general public understanding.
>You would fail this hurdle; and I find that a shame.

One of the problems with some in the UK is that they imagine that
STV needs only small changes. There is a mistake of having a
bad (Cumulative Vote style) substitute for the "One Man One Vote" idea
(i.e. the idea of keeping the power of other papers under 1).

No one has stressed up wrong beliefs with with results from a black box
testing, applied to their own methods. If I can get Python running in
a Win32 DLL then I might be able to test the UK Electoral Reform Society's
main STV.

>I'll spend a bit of time attempting to infer what you might have meant
>with your recent flurry of posts before attempting to answer that (or

If you prefer this mailing list over mine then I'd expect that you
are not learning much.

However we all can start learning Mr Heitzig after I leave. Most of it
would not be true, but if USA readers wait seventeen years or whatever,
then he would say that his previous teachings were WRONG and also offer
something else to prevent a vacuum of idea arising in the minds of the
university students.

Re 'Participation'
>> It would have to be rejected anyway since it is not a multiwinner.
>See above.  I don't buy into this "one size fits all" state.  I'm
>quite happy with STV for multi-winner cases, by the way.  It's the

So far it sounds like you don't have a full set of axioms.


     **  STV failing in tests **

>From what I have seen, STV does not get better when having 2 winners
instead of 1. STV is going to get a bad write up. Avy indicates what
might be done to correct 2-winner STV.

Here are some 2 winner 3 candidate election results:

At 2002-October-04 06:01  Friday, Craig Carey wrote to single-transferable-vote:
>The following shows [] a huge loss of proportionality
>· · A · · · 2
>· · AB· · ·64
>· · B · · · 1
>· · C · · ·33
>· ·IFPP winners · · = {A,B}
>· ·Meek STV winners = {A,C}
>· · A · · ·18
>· · AB· · ·17
>· · B · · ·32
>· · C · · ·33
>· ·IFPP winners · · = {A,B}
>· ·Meek STV winners = {A,C}

(The "IFPP" method is my Truncation Resistant "Improved First Past the Post".)

So it seems that STV is quite faulty.

So far no person in the UK had a public intelligent explanation on why C
is winning instead of B.

Why can't the 64*(AB) votes be used to make B win ? (i.e. in world of the ideals
that STV should follow).

Also, somewhere in my STV mailing list is a 2 winner 4 candidate election
example that shows that a 16% support rise, is negated. So that is 1/2 of
the 1/3 quota. The 1 winner 3 candidate Alternative Vote will negate 25%,
which is also 1/2 of the quota. So far it seems that when increasing the
number of winners, STV does not improve at all.

>Actually, all I'm saying is that if you have any hope of people taking your
>views seriously, you have to have a reputation of credibility.  This is

Surely I can multiply your comments on credit and people, by a big crayon

This mailing list is not the best. I am not seeing e-mails of Mr "Bolson".
Maybe he can't endure.

>a) you've insulted them in the past; or b) they think you're a crackpot.

When I first read some e-mails by you, things were unpromising since your
draft PDF had you following a AV/STV count stage by stage.

I shall quit this mailing list and leave it for Mr Heitzig to reshape the
minds of the learners. I see that he does not list axioms and then derive
a 3 candidate method using symbolic algebra or other reasoning.


I shall quit after writing this!

   (since a dull mailing with persons seemingly knowing too little!!)

Mr Heitzig *will* be picking up the batton (for the idiots) after I leave !!!.

The date when Heitzig will start contemplating a need to be fair might be
secret !-!!! (no problem: I'll be absent), but any estimate of the year would be
nice !!!-!!! [I skip out 5 exlamation marks], particularly now that Ms
Galletly said an attitude to sTV was to be "happy" !!-!!-!!!.


 * loosed in the night; "plowed" not ployed

 * Regarding my Deutche Welle TV 'lets get a spouse' comment. Mr Heitzig does
   unnecessary pairing (in his Condorcet non-intellectual world).

   So I hinted at a transfer the ideal of
       "being more unfair than is reasonable"
   over to the German human activity of getting and dumping dating partners.
   After rashing things with desire, etc., there has to be some sort of
   backup ideal !-!!-!!!-!!. Maybe Mr Hetzig can name good pubs in his
   city, in passing, for the tourist !!!-!!-!-!-!-!.

---                                                        Craig Carey
On STV or etc. :http://groups.yahoo.com/group/single-transferable-vote 

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list