[EM] Ballot design (new simple legal strategy to get IRV)

[Juho Laatu]

> On 11 Oct 2015, at 15:11, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> On 10/11/2015 01:06 AM, Juho Laatu wrote:
>> 
>> Bias-lessness is achieved in Finland by inviting representatives of
> all parties to take part in the vote counting process. I guess the
> tradition is to not to even start making biased interpretations.
>> 
>> STV is unfortunately not as summable as e.g. Condorcet. One may lose
>> also some privacy and introduce some risk of coercion and vote buying by
>> recording and distributing ranked votes to the central authority (and
>> who knows even publishing them). I have no good foolproof solution for
>> that right now. Risks to be estimated and appropriate protective
>> measures to be taken (or just stay in some simpler methods).
> 
> That brings to mind what I'd call a great open question: is the Droop
> proportionality criterion compatible with summability? I suspect not,
> and I suspect that a proof would make use of a pigeonhole principle. I
> don't have much beyond that hunch, though.

Do you mean Droop proportionality with ranked votes? I'm thinking about a voter who votes A>B>C>D>E, where candidates A, B, C and D can not win. To pass the vote to E, the vote probably has to be stored as it is.

Juho