[EM] STV and weighted positional methods

[Raph Frank]

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp at gmail.com> wrote:
> No. I believe that Cincinnati wants a fair equitable voting method
> that is publicly transparent and were smart enough to realize what an
> utter unfair mess the IRV/STV voting method is, and also recognized
> that STV/IRV methods tend to keep the top two parties in power by
> ensuring that minority parties cannot interfere unless the minority
> gets large enough to cause the elimination of the most popular
> two-party candidate, causing the least favorite two party candidate to
> win.

PR-STV with multi-seat constituencies is an extremely effective system
at putting the voters in control.

In Ireland, there are even complaints that it gives to much power to the voters.

>> 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.
>
> Yes. That is exactly what I said.

But you are recommending that minority representation is dependent on
gerrymandering?