[EM] Richard: PR, for the last time

[Michael Ossipoff]

Though you’re certainly certainly welcome to your theories, sorry but your
source is mistaken.

If you’d do a little reading, you’d find that there’s a consensus that
Webster/Sainte-Lague, while very nearly unbiased, & while the most unbiased
of the allocation rules that are or have been used, is slightly biased in
favor of larger parties (or states).

I’ve told the unbiased allocation rule, & have supplied journal-paper
references, & have, last month here, outlined its derivation.

Thank you for reminding us that you prefer voting only for faces, hairdos,
& personalities, with their vague, unreliable & unenforceable promises,
instead of for policy platforms.

Though about 2/3 of the world’s countries use PR, only a tiny fraction of
them use STV. They nearly all use Party-List PR, a referendum on policy.

Open-list PR includes voting for the people who will be seated by the
platform-lists.

Open-List PR is incomparably more easily, transparently & easily-verifiably
 counted  than the cumbersome days-long STV-count.

…which, even with computers, & even when used to elect only one winner, has
a way of taking days.

I don’t have time to keep replying to these posts. I’ll make us if the
settings to re-route them from the inbox.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20231017/3ef9294f/attachment.htm>