[EM] Explaining PR-STV

[Kathy Dopp]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Raph Frank<raphfrk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Kathy Dopp<kathy.dopp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think that would be reasonable, but some people might not like that
>>> their district ends up with 1 fewer representatives.
>>
>> Well IRV can not elect candidates to all the seats if it follows its
>> own rules for quotas.
>
> I think people would prefer all seats filled in their district than to
> have some majority failure seats.

Yes.We agree. Then you agree that the IRV/STV method should not be
used since it virtually always fails the majority criteria quotas that
it sets and fails to elect a sufficient number of candidates to fill
all the seats?

>
> Also, why do you have a problem with IRV not obtaining a majority, but
> no problem with using plurality which also doesn't always obtain a
> majority?

Often IRV/STV is sold as replacing top-two runoff systems, thus why do
you support replacing a majority system with a non-majority IRV/STV
system, necessitating that any jurisdiction that adopts RCV or IRV
eliminates any of its majority requirements?


>>
>> Well the 75 voters in Aspen who caused their favorite candidate to
>> lose by ranking him first (whereas he would have won if they hadn't),
>> may disagree with you, as per this oped in the Aspen Times this week:
>
> Right, IRV is not a good single seat method.

The Aspen election used STV and that is how the nonmonotonicity
resulted, in a multi-seat city council election.

You should do due diligence to investigate the facts, actually read
the articles or reports on STV in Aspen and Burlington, etc. so you
don't confuse your imagination of what STV/IRV do with the reality of
what they do,and be willing to tell people the truth about how IRV/STV
really works, namely that it removes their voting right to cast a vote
for a candidate that positively effects that candidate's chances to
win in both IRV and in STV.


>
> However, the impact of the problems are lessened with PR-STV.

Again, the majority-favored, most popular city council candidate who
lost thanks to STV's nonmonotonicity and all his supporters in Aspen
might disagree with you.

>
>> Well that is where you and I disagree philosophically -- I think
>> voters have a right to know that their vote helps, rather than hurts a
>> candidate's chances of winning.
>
> But in PR-STV, it is likely to help.  The issue is greater in IRV (as
> polls are more accurate, so it is possible to abuse the
> non-monotonicity, more easily).

Again, we disagree because  I think that voters have a right to know
that their vote helps, rather than hurts a
 candidate's chances of winning, whereas you think voting should be
like gambling where voters have a *chance* that their votes *may* help
or *may* hurt their candidate's chances of winning.


>
> It shows that in actual elections candidates want voters to give them
> second choices.

OK. So what?

> In real elections, ranking a candidate higher is likely to help the candidate.

Or in STV/IRV it may hurt that candidate's chances of winning or not
affect it at all.

>
> It is almost impossible to take advantage of the non-monotonicity, in
> practical PR-STV elections.

Yes, but it certainly advantages the less popular candidates and it
certainly is possible for voters of more widely supported candidates
to be penalized by it and for nonmonotonicity to cause a
majority-opposed candidate win while a majority-favorite loses in
STV/IRV.

It is impossible to take advantage of lots of very negative things in
life, does that mean we should support every negative thing that some
advantage can not be planned of it in advance?

I mean I can't take advantage of all the crime that is committed in
the town I live in, but it still hurts me. According to your logic I
should support all the crime in my neighborhood since I can't take
advantage of it?

I truly don't have time to continue rebutting what I consider to be
wholly irrational and worst imaginable method of counting votes,
STV/IRV.


-- 

Kathy Dopp

Town of Colonie, NY 12304
phone 518-952-4030
cell 518-505-0220

http://utahcountvotes.org
http://electionmathematics.org
http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/

Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting - 18 Flaws and 4 Benefits
http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf

Voters Have Reason to Worry
http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf

Checking election outcome accuracy --- Post-election audit sampling
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/PEAuditSamplingMethods.pdf