[EM] Yee diagrams (was Re: robla's weekly hangout: 2pm-4pm PDT/PST on Tuesdays)

[Rob Lanphier]

Hi Richard,

First, let's talk about how you prefer to be addressed.  Would you
prefer "Hi Richard", or "Hi Dr. Fobes" or some old-fashioned gendered
formal thing?  I will address you as "Mr. VoteFair Guy" if you prefer
that.

As for me, I like "Hi Rob" as a greeting, and I've grown quite fond of
"Hi robla" over the years.  "Hello Mr. Lanphier" sounds stern and
foreboding, but if you're pissed off at me, that's not a bad way to
start a conversation.

More inline...

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 1:47 PM Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com> wrote:
> Supposition about the supporters of the Hare system is not science. I can easily
> substantiate the independent inventors of proportional representation, Thomas
> Hare and Carl Andrae. Their method the proportional count of the preference
> vote is based on the foundation of our civilisation, in the sciences and the arts,
> namely order and proportion.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I have a metaphor to explain
STV that I hope resonates.  Pretend that the goal is to divide up a
pumpkin pie among five people.  One "scientific" way to do it is to
put the pie in the center of a large centrifuge, and put five
equally-spaced vials within the perimeter of the centrifuge.  Securely
attach funnels to the mouths of the vials (that are large enough to
catch the flying pie bits).  Then securely attach the pie tin to the
rotating axis, and turn it on for a few minutes.

With a proper centrifuge and funnel rig, it would be possible to
divide the pie up five ways evenly.  It seems that there are better
ways of dividing up pie, but the centrifuge/funnel method would likely
ensure five equal vials of pie.  My problem with using a centrifuge is
that it literally forces the pie to the edges of the centrifuge.  It's
also my problem with Hare's method.

Enough about centrifuged pies though; more below....

> To be more specific, it conforms to the work of S. S. Stevens, in Science, in the
> 1940s, on the scales of measurement, including the ordinal scale and the ratio
> scale, conspicuous by their absence in so many dud voting methods, not entirely
> absented from this mailing list.

I'm assuming you're referring to this paper:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131124150916/https://marces.org/EDMS623/Stevens%20SS%20(1946)%20On%20the%20Theory%20of%20Scales%20of%20Measurement.pdf

...written by this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Smith_Stevens

I haven't read it.  I'm assuming you're suggesting everyone reading
this mailing list should.  Could you give the "tl;dr" version of the
paper?

Rob