[EM] Quotaless STV-PR suggestion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:57 PM 7/3/2013, Chris Benham wrote:

>Some STV fans might not like that, but I'm not fully on board with the LNHarm
>religion. While I think a very strong truncation incentive is a bad 
>thing, absolute
>compliance with LNHarm makes it more likely that the result will (at 
>least partly) be
>determined by the weak, maybe ill-informed, preferences of voters who are only
>really interested in their favourites (and certainly wouldn't have 
>turned out if their
>favourites weren't on the ballot); thereby reducing the  "Social 
>Utility" of the full
>set of winners (and maybe compromising the legitimacy of some of them).

LnH was nauseating to the reviewer, I'm sure, because that criterion 
guarantees that a method cannot find an optimal compromise in a 
fairly common scenario, center squeeze. The equivalent in direct 
negotation is someone who refuses to let you know their alternative 
preferences until someone pulls out a gun and shoots their favorite. 
"Now, will you consider an alternative?"

"Since you put it that way ...."

>I like IRV, but its compliance with LNHarm isn't IMO one of its best features.

The discussion was STV. While it is optimal, LNH makes sense in the 
first rounds of multiwinner elections.

Ideally, *there is no compromise in representation.*

That is why Asset Voting was such a brilliant invention. I think 
Dodgson did understand the issues. If not, well, it is still brillig, 
and the slithy toves still gyre and gimble in the wabe.

He was wabe yond nearly everyone else.