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

[James Gilmour]

Kathy Dopp  > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:45 PM
> 
> talking out loud...

You were indeed "talking out loud".

>From you posts over several years it would APPEAR that you have no real appreciation of the purpose of a proportional representation
voting system.  If you have such an appreciation, it is not apparent from your posts.

Nor do you show any appreciation of the existence of two fundamentally different approaches to "proportional representation".  These
give very different answers to the question: "Proportional representation of what?"


> 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 rankings were limited in this artificial way, the proportionality obtained would be poor, and very poor in some
circumstances.


> 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.

As has been explained many times, it is not possible to devise a voting system that simultaneously meets all the "desirable
criteria". Voting systems that comply with 'monotonicity' fail 'later no harm'.  As has also been explained, monotonicity is of no
importance whatsoever in public elections because it cannot be exploited either by the candidates or by the voters.  In contrast,
failure to comply with 'later no harm' opens the way for undesirable strategic and tactical voting.  Also, compliance with 'later no
harm' does seem to be important to real voters.


> 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.

If you cannot eliminate candidates and transfer their votes in accordance with the voters' instructions, you cannot obtain
proportional representation (or only very poor PR).


> 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.

The whole purpose of the 'transferable vote' is obtain proportional representation from among a diversity of views.  There should
be, and need be, no artificial restriction on the diversity represented by the candidates who offer themselves for election.


> 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, 

The purposes of party-list PR voting systems and STV-PR are fundamentally different.  The objective of ALL party-list PR voting
systems is to obtain PR of the registered political parties.  In contrast, the objective of STV-PR is to obtain PR of whatever the
voters want, as expressed by their responses to the candidates who have offered themselves for election.

IF the voters in an STV-PR election vote for the candidates strictly by party, then party PR will result.  But with this very
important difference  -  the voters will have determined which of each party's candidates are elected.  In a closed-list party-list
PR voting system, the voters have no say at all  -  that gives more power to the party machines.  In a typical open-list party-list
PR voting system, the voters have some say, but such voting systems do not give proportionality WITHIN the various parties  -  and
that can sometimes be as important as PR among the parties.  There are a few open-list party-list PR voting systems that approach
STV-PR in the flexibility they give the voters, but they are so complicated you may as well go all the way and give the voters the
full freedom of STV-PR.


> 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.

As explained, above, this will not give PR, or at best, only very poor PR.


> Any method of proportional representation must be precinct-summable in
> a reasonable fashion

It is well-known that you attach great importance to this, but it is not a feature or requirement of public elections in many
countries.  NO public elections in the UK are ever counted at precinct level. All the ballots are taken to the relevant counting
centre before the ballot boxes are opened.  And it has been like that for many, many decades.  And it is not a source of any problem
or concern.


> 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.

STV-PR does, in fact, treat all voters and all voters' votes equally.  The purpose of the vote being transferable subject only to
limit of the number of candidates or any lower limit imposed by the individual voter, is to obtain PR.  Of course, if any political
party or interest group underestimates its likely support among the voters, and so nominates too few candidates, it has only itself
to blame.  If you do not nominate the candidates, you cannot win the seats.


> 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.

STV-PR does give PR, of whatever the voters want.


> 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.

Here you again fail to recognise the essential difference between the party list approach and STV-PR.  The two groups of voting
systems have fundamentally different objectives.  They also have different political effects.  All party-list systems will, or will
tend to, strengthen the position of the party machines, whereas STV-PR will shift the balance of power away from the party machines
and give it to the voters, to whom it belongs.


If all you want politically is PR of registered political parties, a party-list PR voting system will give you that.  But if you
have a different, better vision of politics and the police system, you will want to empower the voters, and that's what STV-PR could
do.

James Gilmour



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.39/2469 - Release Date: 10/30/09 07:52:00