[EM] Article: Electoral dysfunction: Why democracy is always unfair (New Scientist)

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Peter Zbornik wrote:
> Article in New Scientist: 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627581.400-electoral-dysfunction-why-democracy-is-always-unfair.htm
> (link from http://www.openstv.org/).

I suppose it's good enough for an introductory article, but some of the 
emphasis seems odd.

For instance, they make a big deal of the Alabama paradox in 
proportional representation, and only mention divisor methods at the end 
of the note elaborating the paradox - but most countries use divisor 
methods and quota violation happens more seldomly than the Alabama paradox.

Also, it doesn't explain that Condorcet ties can be broken in practical 
situations, and I would say it places too much emphasis on IIA - but 
that may be true of arguments that "Arrow shows voting can't be fair", 
in general.

To sum all that up: yes, there are glitches, and no, you can't get 
around all of them. Yet some methods are less flawed than others, and I 
think one can get close enough that the lack of perfection doesn't matter.