[EM] STV and weighted positional methods

[Kathy Dopp]

OK James. I stand corrected.

Although I think that Cincinnati OH defeated an STV plan for just such
a reason - that the STV plan reduced the number of votes that each
voter could cast for at-large seats.

I suppose district seats is a good alternative that tends to represent
minority groups who live dispersed in different districts.

 But you're right that a single ranked or rated vote method if a fair
method (unlike IRV/STV) would better allow for a geographically
dispersed minority group to obtain representation if they came out and
voted in numbers proportionate to their population for candidates who
represented their position and if their proportion of the population
were at least 1/N where N is the number of seats being decided.

Thanks.

Kathy

Kathy

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 11:24 AM, James Gilmour <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Kathy Dopp  > Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 6:03 PM
>> > 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.
>
> This statement shows that the writer has no understanding of the basic requirements of a voting system that will elect a properly
> representative assembly.
>
> A properly representative assembly is one in which the proportions of seats won by candidates supported by different opinion groups
> among the voters broadly reflect the relative sizes of those opinion groups among the voters.  (In partisan elections, for "opinion
> groups" read "political parties".)
>
> If N candidates are to be elected at large and each voter has N "separate votes", then the assembly will be properly representative
> only by chance, no matter how the N "separate votes" are counted (ranked, rated or plurality.)  In fact, multiple-plurality (at
> large) is one of the worst voting systems ever devised.
>
> James Gilmour
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1928 - Release Date: 31/01/2009 20:03
>
>
>



-- 

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