[EM] PR for USA or UK

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi Toby,

--- En date de : Sam 23.7.11, Toby Pereira <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk> a écrit :
>And I would argue that more "strategy-resistent" systems generally 
>work by basically doing the strategy for you, so already give 
>"dishonest" results. So it's not that they give better results.

I really don't know what "dishonest results" means. Judging by your
example below it apparently requires comparing two different methods.
So, I can make any method give "dishonest results" just by inventing
a different method that requires dishonesty from everyone. Now every 
other method in the world is cheating.

It's not a bad description that strategy-resistant systems "do the
strategy for you." This has important results:

1. The voters do not need to do the strategy
2. So the playing field is leveled
3. So votes should have correct effect in proportion to the number,
meaning the outcome is more accurate. That is, it reflects better the
overall preferences of the electorate.

>On my website I give an example where party A has 68% of the support 
>and party B 32%. There are two seats and so each party fields two 
>candidates. Assuming everyone would vote approval style, under my 
>system, they would win one each. Party A would need over 75% of the 
>votes to win the second seat. I would argue that this is a fair result 
>(75% being bang in the middle between 50% and 100% - the amount to 
>exactly earn one and two seats).

How is 50% the amount to get one seat?

> Of course party A voters could 
>coordinate themselves and split into two factions of 34% to take both 
>seats, but this would be very hard for them to achieve. STV (Droop 
>quota anyway) would transfer the votes above the quota accordingly 
>so that party A would win both seats, and give what I would regard 
>as the less fair result.
 
Ok, but it's not obvious that it is less fair. You are according a
privilege to the weaker party just because it is a different party.

Kevin Venzke