[EM] British Colombia considering change to STV

[Bob Richard]

> ... where the winners may be opposed by a
> majority of voters.

Kathy, which would you rather have -- a legislature in which each segment of the population is represented in proportion to its size, or a legislature which represents only the winning segment? If you prefer the latter, then of course you will oppose STV (along with all other methods of proportional representation). If you prefer the former, then you have some homework to do. Allocating seats in proportion to votes means, by definition, that some winners will be opposed by a majority of voters.

--Bob Richard

Kathy Dopp wrote:
> STV has *all* the same flaws as IRV but is even worse.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> It truly shocks me that anyone could support such an insanely unfair,
> inequitable, and undesirable method for counting votes.
>
> Kathy
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Terry Bouricius
> <terryb at burlingtontelecom.net> wrote:
>   
>> Kathy,
>>
>> While there are serious disagreements on this list about the relative
>> merits of various single-winner voting methods, I think you will find that
>> most people who have studied the STV form of proportional representation
>> agree that it is a very fair and very good method, and arguably the best
>> in use anywhere today. I can't imagine any thoughtful reformer wanting to
>> throw a monkey wrench into one of the most promising election reform
>> movements in the world today. Go BC-STV!
>>
>> Terry Bouricius
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Kathy Dopp" <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>
>> To: <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: [EM] British Colombia considering change to STV
>>
>>
>>     
>>> 1. British Colombia considering change to STV (Graham Bignell)
>>>       
>> It wasn't hard to find a site campaigning against it:
>>
>> http://www.nostv.org/count.html
>>
>> People might also want to warn the BC government about the ugly mess
>> that they would get themselves into by adopting such a fundamentally
>> unfair, inequitable, complex and costly method for counting rank
>> choice votes.  The web page to contact the BC government is:
>>
>> http://www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info/contact/
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   

-- 
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
http://www.marinrankedvoting.org