[EM] STV - the transferrable part is OK (fair), the sequential round elimination is not

[James Gilmour]

Kathy Dopp  > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 1:20 PM
> Vote-splitting does mean less proportional 
> representation using STV if more candidates run relative to 
> some groups' constituency share compared to other groups.  

Must be some misunderstanding here.  Because the surplus votes of elected candidates and the votes of eliminated candidates are
transferable, the votes will progressively concentrate onto the appropriate number of candidates to represent each group
proportionately.


> That and all STV's other extreme flaws is why any of the 
> other better proportional systems are more proportional and 
> also better in a host of other ways.

Proportionality is dependent solely on district magnitude.  For the same district magnitude, STV-PR is as proportional as any other
PR voting system  -  no more, but no less.

"Extreme flaws" and "better" both require definition and exposition.

For many voters, the ability to rank all the candidates freely on any basis whatsoever makes STV-PR "better" than any other PR
voting system.  One reason why these voters consider that "better" is the effects it can have on the relationships between the
elected members and the local voters, between the elected members and their parties, and between the elected assembly and the
executive, especially where the executive is based within the assembly (as in "parliamentary" system).  These "political" effects
(beyond simple PR) are important considerations, especially from the voters' perspective.

James Gilmour



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.42/2473 - Release Date: 10/31/09 21:14:00