[EM] STV and weighted positional methods

[Kathy Dopp]

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Raph Frank <raphfrk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think it would be possible but you would have to have to have a few columns for each round.

A lot more than a few. Try to do it with even 1/2 or 1/3 of all the
possible ballot ranking combinations and a few candidates in a way
that a newbie could just plop in new results and get an answer.

>
> However, PR-STV is a sequential system, which is harder to implement with spreadsheets.

Virtually impossible to automate in a way that novices could simply
plug in the number for any STV election contest for any number of
candidates and ballot orderings.

Prove me wrong if you can, but I doubt that you'll be able to unless
you use a programming language that is also opaque to most people.

> Are you opposed to any kind of PR system?

Only if you believe that all PR systems only allow voters to cast one
ranked or rated ballot for casting a vote for a multi-seat at-large
contest.  Voters should always be able to fill out as many separate
votes as the number of candidates that they are allowed to vote into
office. If two at-large seats, then two separate votes, ranked, rated,
or plurality.

>
> Party list systems are (mostly) monotonic.

Do not know what "Party list systems" are, but all plurality elections
are monotonic.

> The only time your 2nd choice won't be looked at is if you vote for the last candidate to be eliminated as your first choice,

Yes, so that can be a very large group of voters whose 2nd choices are
never considered even though their 1st choice loses and is one of
several inequities that causes IRV/STV to have such undesirable
outcomes.

> In any case, in an N seat election, up to 1/(N+1) of the voters will not have a candidate who represents them.  In a single seat

More than that with IRV/STV election process unless you redefine the
term "voters" to only include voters left standing in the final
counting round - as most IRV/STV proponents do.

BTW, the process you describe below is very unlike PR-STV because
voters may revote based on prior voting rounds' outcomes, but it is
also very unfair as it allows only some voters to revote.


> PR-STV is designed to be similar to a process you could follow in a town meeting like situation.
>
> 1) Each voter votes for 1 candidate
> 2) Work out the Droop quota
> 3) If any candidate exceeds the quota, that candidate is appointed to the committee
> -- Select some of the voters (equal to the surplus) who voted for the candidate and allow them to move their vote
> (This selection could be made at random, or by deweighting all of those people's votes) 4) If no candidate reached the quota, eliminate the candidate with the
> fewest votes
> -- Allow those voters to move their vote to other candidates
>



-- 

Kathy Dopp

The material expressed herein is the informed  product of the author's
fact-finding and investigative efforts. Dopp is a Mathematician,
Expert in election audit mathematics and procedures; in exit poll
discrepancy analysis; and can be reached at

P.O. Box 680192
Park City, UT 84068
phone 435-658-4657

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

Post-Election Vote Count Audit
A Short Legislative & Administrative Proposal
http://electionmathematics.org//ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/Vote-Count-Audit-Bill-2009.pdf

History of Confidence Election Auditing Development & Overview of
Election Auditing Fundamentals
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/History-of-Election-Auditing-Development.pdf

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