[EM] British Colombia considering change to STV

[Raph Frank]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp at gmail.com> wrote:
> STV has *all* the same flaws as IRV but is even worse.

I think that it has all the same flaws, but that the damage they do is
mitigated by the fact that it is a multi-seat method.  OTOH, it has
large benefits over other PR methods.

It allows PR while at the same time keeping the power to decide which
candidates are elected in the hands of the voters, rather than in the
hands of the party leadership.

It also doesn't discriminate against independents.  This gives party
members more freedom to vote against the party, as they can still be
re-elected if they get kicked out of the party.

Compare that to New Zealand, where if a person leaves their party,
they have to resign from parliament  (Though most PR list countries
aren't quite that bad).  Candidates represent the party, not the
public.

What is yoru view on something like CPO-STV?  This method collapses to
a condorcet method in the single winner case.  Ofc, it is super
complex to count.

Actually, what do you think of condorcet methods for single seat elections?

> It is unimaginable how anyone could support any method for counting
> votes that is so fundamentally unfair in its treatment of ballots and
> produces such undesirable results.

IRV can end up not picking the condorcet winner, but PR-STV tries to
form quotas worth of voters who all get a candidate that they like.
It isn't quite the same process.

If there are 5 seats, then only 1/6 of the voters don't get
represented and the person who represents them is likely one of their
first few choices.

> STV is nonmonotonic, counts the 2nd and 3rd choices only of some
> voters in a timely fashion when it could help those choices win, does
> not even count any of the 2nd or 3rd choices of a large group of
> voters whose first choice loses, excludes some voters from the final
> counting rounds, and is in all ways the worst imaginable voting system
> that I've ever heard anyone propose.

I think that the elimination process in PR-STV could be improved.
However, the non-monotonicity isn't as bad as you are making out.

> STV is particularly bad because it takes votes away from some voters
> who used to be able to cast votes for one candidate for each at-large
> seat while it counts a variable number of rank choices of other voters
> - some who get to vote for as many candidates as there are seats to
> fill, some who do not.

You only get 1 vote.  The only time you get to vote for more than one
candidate is if your favourite doesn't win, or you vote for someone
who gets more votes than needed to get elected (and in the second
case, your vote is reduced in strength).

> Guys, how on earth can anyone who claims to support the principle of
> fair and equitable treatment try to turn voting into such a patently
> unfair gambling game instead where the winners may be opposed by a
> majority of voters.

The defects of PR-STV are not as important due to the multi-seat
nature of the method.