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

[Kathy Dopp]

Rather than reply individually to the three response to my former
post, I'll just make some observations:

1. It seems like the pro-IRV/STV group has begun to dominate this list,

2. the assumption that "Later-no-harm" is a desirable feature of a
voting method is very odd. I would claim that the opposite is true, in
agreement with Abd ul Lomax. Later-no-harm is a feature that prevents
a voting method from finding majority-favored compromise candidates
and ensures that IRV/STV tends to find candidates supported by either
extreme leftist or rightist groups

3. STV does *not* achieve proportional representation at all unless
there is no vote splitting and just the right number of candidates run
who support each group's interests. I.e. the success of methods like
STV to achieve proportional representation rest in the unlikely
assumption that just the right proportion of candidates run (or more
precisely an equal proportion of candidates run) in proportion to the
number of voters in each separate group.  This is just simple
mathematical fact.

4. STV does not solve the spoiler problem and the vote-splitting problem

5. It always amazes me how irrationally the supporters of IRV/STV
support a nonmonotonic system that creates more problems than it
solves when there are clearly better alternatives available that
actually solve more problems than they create.

Oh, and for those of you who do not like IRV/STV and want to show your
friends why, I've put up a new web page with links to some great new
educational youtube videos showing how IRV/STV really works (doesn't
find majority winners, eliminates the majority-favorite candidate, is
nonmonotonic, etc.)

Learn About Instant Runoff Voting Methods
http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/index.php?/categories/2-Instant-Runoff-Voting

Thassal.

Cheers,

Kathy Dopp