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

[fsimmons at pcc.edu]

Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote 

[in response to
Peter Zbornik who 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.

I respond:

Right on Kristofer!   You might be thinking of my message at 

http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2010-April/025843.html

If somebody knows how to reach Ian Stewart, I would appreciate it if they would
either send him this link to my comments on Arrow and the IIAC or send me his
email address so I can.

Thanks,

Forest