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

[Kathy Dopp]

People keep asking me how to achieve a proportional representation system so....

talking out loud...

A fair proportional multiseat STV representation system could be made
by eliminating STV's elimination rounds but using the rank choices to
transfer partial votes to a 2nd choice candidate in cases where more
voters than needed for the threshold for each candidate voted for the
same 1st choice candidate.

If the rank choices were limited to a 1st choice and a 2nd choice
candidate only, unlike Fairytale Vote's IRV/STV method this method
would would be monotonic and precinct-summable (and so be OK to
manually audit and countable in the precincts) using an n x n matrix
where n is the number of candidates running for office.

In other words, for a multi-seat election where we want proportional
representation, limit voters' choices to a 1st and 2nd choice and
count all voters' 1st choices and transfer excess votes to the voters'
2nd choices and you're done - no rounds and no transfers of already
transferred votes.

However, just like with Fairytale Vote's STV system whether or not
this system actually results in proportional representation still
depends on how much vote-splitting results when more or fewer
candidates run for office in proportion to the total number of
candidates running for office, as compared to the proportion of voters
whose interests they represent. I.e. too many candidates running who
represent your interests, or too few and proportional representation
is not achieved using either the Fairytale Vote's STV method or my
(maybe someone else thought of it before) new improved monotonic,
fairer STV method sans any elimination rounds.

Therefore, a better alternative proportional representation system is
the "party list" system where as many candidates on each party list
take office in proportion to the number of voters who vote for that
party, but this new version of STV I figured out this a.m. (maybe
someone else has thought of it before) would work fine as well as long
as the voters were restricted to ranking only a 1st and 2nd choice
candidate.

Any method of proportional representation must be precinct-summable in
a reasonable fashion and give all voters' votes equal treatment,
unlike with the current version of IRV/STV being pushed by Fairytale
Vote which does neither and also in addition does not provide
proportional representation due to vote-splitting when the number of
candidates running who represent my interests is too great, or due to
not enough candidates running in proportion to the voters who share my
interests.

That's why fundamentally the IRV/STV system is a lousy one for
achieving proportional representation even if it were modified to
treat all voters equally and be easily manually checked for accuracy.

The party list system works much better for achieving proportional
representation as long as there is a party representing your
interests.  It doesn't have to be a "party", but could just be that
each candidate chooses his own list of candidates below him/her to
pass excess votes down to.

-- 

Kathy Dopp

Town of Colonie, NY 12304
phone 518-952-4030
cell 518-505-0220

http://utahcountvotes.org
http://electionmathematics.org
http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/

Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting - 18 Flaws and 4 Benefits
http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf

Voters Have Reason to Worry
http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf

Checking election outcome accuracy --- Post-election audit sampling
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/PEAuditSamplingMethods.pdf