[EM] Explaining PR-STV

Sun Aug 30 13:33:24 PDT 2009

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Raph Frank<raphfrk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Kathy Dopp<kathy.dopp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> And replaced with what?
>
> I wouldn't vote for IRV as a single seat method (except perhaps
> relative to plurality).
>
> I agree it isn't a good method for single seat districts.

Ralph,

In *multi-seat* STV elections STV most often fails to meet its own
quotas and can *not* fill all the seats. All jurisdictions who've used
STV have had to recalculate and lower their quotas to account for all
the voters whose ballots are exhausted and have had to eliminate any
majority requirements (the quotas are similar to majority requirements
but for multi-seat situations.)

I fail to understand why you keep repeating "IRV isn't good for single
seat districts" as though this answers the fact that IRV/STV (ANY
method using the IRV/STV counting method) has this failure.

>>
>> The Aspen election used STV and that is how the nonmonotonicity
>> resulted, in a multi-seat city council election.
>
> Hmm, I assumed by IRV, they meant the single seat method.

nope. *read* the article I sent you a link to or read about the recent
Aspen multi-seat city council election or *read* the math proof that I
think Warren wrote. It is really a good idea to investigate the facts
on your own and not simply believe everything an organization like
Fair Vote (more aptly called Fairytale Vote) says.

>
>>
>> You should do due diligence to investigate the facts, actually read
>> the articles or reports on STV in Aspen and Burlington
>
> I read the linked page.  I assumed that IRV meant the single seat method.

STV *is* an IRV method and IRV *is* an STV method. Both methods have
the same flaws but STV has additional flaws.

>
> Is this not the case?  The council is elected from a single multi-seat district?

No. If you don't believe me, call up the City of Aspen if you don't
believe me or *read* the published method of counting votes that Aspen
uses or any of the articles about the Aspen election.

> I still stand by my claim that it is advantageous on average for multi-seat.

OK. You are right **IF** you limit the number of candidates who can
run for each seat. Is that what you're proposing, so that you can find
an upper limit to the gambling probability that each voter has to take
on whether or not a voters' vote counts positively or negatively?

I personally want a 0% chance that my vote causes my favorite
candidates to lose. What exact probability do you propose limiting the
upper chance for causing harm to your favorite candidates to?

When it happens, it is 100% harm to the candidate, regardless of the
initial chance.

I cannot imagine a more insane method for counting votes.

>
> In my experience, the non-monotonicity only can be determined after the fact.

Yes, unless you know how all voters will vote in advance.

The casualty rate in war is only determined after the fact too.  The
casualty rate in a vehicle or chemical accident likewise. Are you
saying that this makes something desirable?

>> 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.
>
> So, Aspen is single seat IRV then?

Huh!? Where are you getting your information? There is such a thing as
"reality checking" that you can learn to do by recognizing that things
that pop into your imagination might not be real and then checking
your imagination against reality by say, doing some reading or making
a phone call, etc.

>> Or in STV/IRV it may hurt that candidate's chances of winning or not
>> affect it at all.
>
> Are you saying that the candidates don't understand the system either
> (or at least don't understand the best way to get elected)?

Noooo. I'm saying that there is no best way to get elected since
garnering more votes may make you lose the election, not win it. READ
the Aspen articles, there are many of them. Use Google.

>
> Again, the tread is about the multi-seat PR version.

I'll repeat. STV has **ALL** the same flaws as IRV, plus some.

I.e. Multi-seat IRV is worse, not better than IRV single seat.

> No, the point is that on average you are better off ranking a
> preferred candidate higher.

So, you are satisfied with "on average the voters will elect who they
want to govern them" (but sometimes the vagaries of the IRV/STV method
will elect a majority-opposed candidate)?

OK. I am not, particularly when any other vote counting method
proposed is far superior in fairness, simplicity, etc. than is
STV/IRV.

>
> I think you are letting your dislike for IRV spill over into PR-STV.
>

I think you continue to argue that STV does not have all the same
flaws as IRV, which is a completely, provably false claim.

Cheers,

-- 

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