# [EM] STV and weighted positional methods

Kathy Dopp kathy.dopp at gmail.com
Sat Jan 31 12:30:41 PST 2009

```On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> wrote:
>> 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).

False. It happens whenever the number of candidates is more than the
number of rankings allowed on a ballot plus the number of seats being
filled.

>>
>> 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.

Unlike top-two runoff or primary/general elections when I am always
allowed to participate in the final counting round no matter who I
voted for in the prior election.

>> I think that you have rose coloured glasses for plurality.  It is one of the worst voting systems out there.

my position. While it may be true that plurality is one of the worst
voting methods available, there is a far worse voting method than
plurality and that is IRV/STV.

>> What is your view on approval?  That is monotonic, precinct-summable, treats voters equally and produces fair results.

Agreed. Also Condorcet is much more easily precinct summable than
IRV/STV by a simple matrix of sums.

>> I don't think you support plurality in order to maintain the monopoly of current voting machine vendors.

This above statement is hopelessly illogical.  Plurality is the
easiest voting method to hand count and requires no voting machines
whatsoever. So if not giving money to vendors is the only concern,
then Yes, plurality is by far the best voting method.

>> In Ireland, we count PR-STV by hand and there are various checks that can be accomplished.

I believe that in Ireland you also have far fewer issues and election
contests to vote on for each ballot.  Am I wrong?

Computer scientists have already mathematically proven that counting
IRV/STV is an exponential problem in computer science. Far far more
difficult and time-consuming to count accurately than other voting