[EM] Amnon Rubinstein's Proposal for Electoral Reform in Israel
watermark0n at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 25 17:12:31 PDT 2006
James Gilmour <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk> wrote: > Antonio Oneala> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:04 PM
> Besides that fact that practically every country that has
> used STV has boiled down to a more or less two-party system?
Would you care to list the countries and states around the world that use STV-PR together with the numbers of parties
represented in their parliaments before they used STV-PR and now after many years of using STV-PR?
In the rest of your post you seem to have muddled the effects of IRV (STV in a single-seat election) and STV-PR
(multi-winner elections). IRV as used to elected the Australian Federal House of Representatives has no relevance to
the operation of STV-PR. Also note that the Australian version of STV-PR as used for the election of the Federal
Senate, with its "above the line" and "below the line" voting, is a gross perversion of STV-PR as it has reduced the
voting system to a de facto closed party list.
You claim that tactical voting is a particular feature of STV-PR, especially with regard to the transfer of surpluses.
Would you care to provide some evidence for that statement, with data from real public elections?
You also say (in comparing STV-PR with SNTV) "But this does not make STV perfect." I don't know who you think made that
claim - I most certainly didn't. There is NO perfect voting system - they all have their defects, STV-PR included.
And the practical implementation of any voting system will always involve compromises.
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
It is simply a fact that STV is not a system that is independent of irrelevant alternatives. If X and Y are competing, adding A to the list could cause one of them to lose. This is almost impossible under PAV. Also, the moderate squeeze definitely STILL exists. All the effects of IRV still exist under STV, to no lesser degree, only having more elected. The only method of STV which doesn't involve some element of randomness is Meek's method, which is possibly more complex than 4 or 5-member PAV districts. PAV has far less modes for tactical voting than STV, as it doesn't involve the rather illogical system of eliminations.
As to CPO-STV, I still can't understand it. It is an extroardanarily complicated system, and Condercet methods are very vulnerable to burying, which I don't believe Condercet methods are going to be able to overcome.
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods