[EM] STV and weighted positional methods

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:41:56 +0000 Raph Frank wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>From: "Terry Bouricius" <terryb at burlingtontelecom.net>
>>>Subject: Re: [EM] STV and weighted positional methods
>>
>>>What is even more puzzling is Ms. Dopp's continued defense of plurality
>>>voting.
>>
If you look you could notice that Kathy is addressing your topic and, at 
least here, not concentrating on Plurality.
>>
>>Gee Terry. I guess it must really puzzle you that I would rather:
>>
>>1. cast a vote and know it helps rather than hurts my favorite
>>candidate to win (unlike in IRV/STV)
> 
> 
> That isn't the case in plurality.  Lots of people vote for one of the
> top-2 rather than their favourite.

She is presumably doing what she says, whether in Plurality or some other 
method where such works.
> 
> IRV allows you vote for your favourite first choice while still
> allowing you participate in the 'real' election between the top-2
> candidates.
> 
> You can consider it a series of elections.  In each election, the
> weakest candidate is eliminated and a new election held with the
> remaining candidates.

IRv usually does such, but DOES NOT always do.
> 
> The ranked ballot allows this to be accomplished with only a single ballot.
> 
> 
>>2. have my ballot and all its choices treated equally with all other
>>voters ballot choices (unlike in IRV/STV)
> 
> 
> All voters are given equal ballots.  Any advantage that other voters
> have, you also have.

She is talking of treatment, not offering.
> 
> 
>>3. have a method that is precinct-summable so easy to manually count
>>and audit (unlike in IRV/STV)
> 
> 
> That is an a valid complaint.  However, you can still be almost
> precinct summable.
> 
> Each precinct announces its results, and then a central office issues
> instructions on how to perform the next round.

This is a BIG difference, since each round must be completed, including 
resolving disputed ballots, before the central office can know what to 
announce.
> 
> In Ireland, all ballot boxes are brought to a central location for
> counting in each constituency/district.
> 
In the US ballots are for multiple races, which can serve multiple 
districts - not clear how such could be combined in one central location.
> 
>>4. use a method that does not require computer programs that are so
>>complex that they are considered to be of exponential runtime to run
>>and so difficult to accurately write that so far not one US vendor has
>>written an accurate one (unlike in IRV/STV)
> 
> 
> Huh?  In Ireland, we hand count the votes for PR-STV.  It certainly
> isn't exponential run-time.
> 
> Each round takes a linear amount of time and the max number of rounds
> is equal to the number of candidates minus one.
> 
> The count time is thus at most (number of votes)*(number of
> candidates-number of seats).  However, in practice, each round
> generally only requires counting of surplus ballots or counting of
> votes for an eliminated candidate.
> 
Apparently needs thought - we hear of San Francisco taking much time.
> 
>>5. allow all voters to participate in the final counting
>>round/decision on whom to elect.
> 
Huh?
> 
> This is the case with IRV/STV.  The only time it doesn't happen is if
> people don't fill in all the ranks (which granted does happen).
> 
> Also, if you always rank one of the top-2, then you are likely to be
> part of the last round, even if you don't rank everyone.
> 
> I don't actually think IRV is a good system, though PR-STV is a good
> system as long as it elects a reasonable number of candidates (say 4
> or more).
> 
> 
>>Yes. You are very puzzled Terry that I would want a fair, equitable
>>system for counting votes.
>>
>> I, on the other hand, am very puzzled by your desire to implement a
>>voting method that is far less fair and equitable, in almost every
>>single way, than our existing voting method is.
> 
> 
> I think that you have rose coloured glasses for plurality.  It is one
> of the worst voting systems out there.
> 
> I am not sure if IRV is really that much better though.  It seems to
> maintain 2 party domination (see Australia).  Its advantage, if any,
> is that it provides more info to the elected candidates about their
> support base.  If a large number of the voters who elected you, voted
> for a 3rd party as their first choice, it might be worth looking into
> what that party stands for.
> 
> What is your view on approval?  That is monotonic, precinct-summable,
> treats voters equally and produces fair results.  Similarly, what do
> you think of the condorcet methods?  (they have meet/fail various
> criteria)
> 
> 
>>1. to help some voting system vendor handsomely profit by the sale of
>>new software and equipment that can count IRV, or
> 
> 
> I think that is a little unfair.  It is perfectly reasonable to
> support IRV for non-corrupt reasons.
> 
> I don't think you support plurality in order to maintain the monopoly
> of current voting machine vendors.  I disagree with your reasoning,
> but I don't think you have an ulterior motive.
> 
> 
>>2. to help implement a voting method that is virtually impossible and
>>very costly at best to manually audit after elections so that someone
>>you know, perhaps, can have a better chance of committing undetectable
>>fraud.
> 
> 
> In Ireland, we count PR-STV by hand and there are various checks that
> can be accomplished.
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.