[EM] STV and weighted positional methods

[Dave Ketchum]

OOPS - these are NOT my statements.

DWK

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:30:41 -0700 Kathy Dopp wrote:
> 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.
>>
> 
> Whoever made this statement makes false unsupported assumptions about
> 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
> methods. I am fairly certain that your assertion about counting time
> is incorrect.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Kathy
-- 
  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.