[EM] STV and weighted positional methods

[Kathy Dopp]

Ralph & other IRV/STV proponents,

I have already replied and clarified what I meant. Please go back and
reread cause I'm not going to keep retyping the same, and I cannot
prevent you from misconstruing my meaning if you insist.

To clarify one last time,  I clearly said (first sentence in my email)
that "I stand corrected" that am not against FAIR, EQUITABLE,
MONOTONIC PR methods. I.e. a multiple at-large contest with one ranked
or rated ballot as long as that ballot is counted in a fair,
equitable, monotonic way (I.e. NOT by IRV/STV methods).

There. I hope that helps you understand my position and I'm going to
from now on ignore any mischaracterizations of my positions and do
more productive activities for the rest of today.

Thanks.

Kathy

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Raph Frank >>>
>>> But you are recommending that minority representation is dependent on
>>> gerrymandering?
>>
>> Apparently you completely misunderstood what I said not once, but
>> twice. Please reread what I said.
>>
>
> I assume you mean:
>
>>>  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.
>
> Ok, so that is single non transferable vote.  Each voter votes for 1
> candidate and the N candidates with the most votes win the N seats?
>
> This has serious strategy issues.
>
> For example, lets say that there are 3 parties and 5 seats
>
> A1: 25
> A2: 20
> A3: 10
> B1: 15
> B2: 12
> C1: 18
>
> The winners are
> A1, A2, C1, B1, B2
>
> The A party obtained 55% of the votes but only obtained 2 of the
> seats.  PR-STV would have allowed transfers from A1 and A2 to A3 in
> order that A3 would win a seat too.
>
> For parties to win a proportional number of seats, they have to
> coordinate their votes.  If the A party recommended that some voters
> switch their support to A3, then the result might have been
>
> A1: 20
> A2: 19
> A3: 16
> B1: 15
> B2: 12
> C1: 18
>
> The trick is to split your votes evenly between candidates.
>
> However, if you overdo it, you might end up not winning any seats.
>
> This means that the party leadership has to keep a tight reign on
> their candidates.  Also, voters have to follow instructions in order
> to optimise their votes.
>
> The effect of this is to shift power from voters to the party leadership.
>
> PR-STV handles the transfers automatically.  If you vote for a
> candidate who turns out not to win, you vote is reassigned to another
> candidate who has a chance of winning.  Likewise, if to many voters
> vote for a candidate, then excess/surplus votes are reassigned.
>



-- 

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