[EM] STV and weighted positional methods

[James Gilmour]

Kathy Dopp > Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 6:44 PM
> 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 am not familiar with that particular case, but the usual reason why STV-PR is defeated is because the partisan interests realise
that they would loose power if they won seats in proportion to their support among the voters.  The larger parties in particular do
not want the voters to be represented fairly, that is, for the parties to win seats proportionately, in accordance with the wishes
of the voters.  Those parties want to keep a voting system that consistently distorts the voters' wishes in favour of their parties.


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

No, this would NOT be good alternative, because the largest minority could win every one of the single-member district seats and so
leave a majority of the voters without representation.  NO voting system based on single-member districts can ensure fair and
balanced representation of the voters.  To achieve fair representation it is necessary to elect several members together  -  the
more elected together, the  more proportional the outcome will be.   Electing more together also increases the diversity of views
that can be represented directly (by "one of their own kind"), if the voters so wish.


>  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.

I am afraid you have confused me here.  The best way to provide representation for a geographically dispersed minority is to elect
as many embers as possible "at large" (e.g. the whole city council).  It is then up to that minority to make sure they all vote for
the candidate(s) who best represents their views.  If that minority is large enough to secure 1/Nth of the votes (or 1/(N+1)th of
the votes in STV-PR), then that minority will obtain one seat, or more in due proportion to their votes.

James



> 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