[EM] What is the name of this simplest STV multi-winner method?

[robert bristow-johnson]

Okay guys, I never used the word "proportional" or "PR".

I know "STV" is commonly equated to "multi-winner RCV" by the same folks who equate "RCV" and "IRV".  I still think "STV", given the root meaning of the phrase, is applicable in semantic.  I know I am resisting a pre-established convention, but if the RCV method is in sequential rounds where individual votes were being transferred from one candidate to another, it's STV in my semantic.  This convention I dislike less than when FairVote (and some jurisdictions) adopted "RCV" to mean only Hare STV.

Thanks, Jack, for the doi link.

And thanks everyone for the semantic help.

Never said it was "PR", but I still say it's semantically more accurate to say it's "STV" even if that is not the convention of practice.

And Ken B, I'm getting right back to you.

Thank y'all.

robert

> On 11/25/2022 6:32 PM EST Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>  
> On 11/25/22 23:47, Andy Dienes wrote:
> > Bottoms-up IRV. It is not very proportional though.
> 
> I've also heard it referred to as "at-large IRV" (LWV Boulder, 
> https://downloads.regulations.gov/EAC-2020-0002-0003/attachment_1.pdf 
> page 4) or "bloc IRV" (Jameson Quinn, 
> https://twitter.com/bettercount_us/status/1412445147015622664)
> 
> I wouldn't call it STV either, and it can be near-arbitrarily 
> disproportional, e.g.
> 
> 1048576: A>B>C>D>E
>        1: F
> 
> Two to be elected, the Droop proportionality criterion says that A and B 
> must be elected, but B, C, D, and E are eliminated by plain IRV because 
> they have no first preferences, leading A and F to be elected.

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.