<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">> Date: Thu, 18 Jun
2015 22:17:11 +0200<br>> From: km_elmet@t-online.de<br>> To:
stevebosworth@hotmail.com; election-methods@lists.electorama.com;
jgilmour@globalnet.co.uk; fredgohlke@verizon.net<br>> Subject: Re:
[EM] The 'post mortem' discussions on UK radio (from Steve)<br>> On 06/18/2015 05:49 PM, steve bosworth wrote:<br></p><p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Hi
Kristofer,</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </p><p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Perhaps to continue our
dialogue most efficiently, please tell me if I have properly
understood</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">your use of
'asymptotically' below.</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br>S: Because you want
both a 'simple' and 'fair' electoral system, perhaps<br>> > you
would like to consider APR. It is referred to in my next comment to<br>>
> James Gilmour. APR's countrywide count with its modified STV
would be<br>> > administured through all the single member
constituencies that remained<br>> > after APR's primary
election. Consequently, rather than having to rank<br>> > more
than one candidate, each citizen would still have the option of<br>>
> voting only for one candidate, much as they do now using FPTP.
At the<br>> > same time, each such vote would still be
guaranteed to continue<br>> > mathematically to count in the
legislative assembly. APR seems to offer<br>> > your 'fairness
throughout'. APR is almost as simple as party-list<br>> >
systems but puts each citizen in control of to which
representative's<br>> > 'weighted vote' her vote will be
added.<br>> ><br>> > What do you think?<br>> <br>K:
Unfortunately, because APR reduces to IRV, I can only consider it <br>>
asymptotically fair (that is, when you have enough seats compared to
the <br>> number of candidates).
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">S: Please correct me if
I have misunderstood you to mean the following: The more reps to be
elected from a multi-winner district (from many more candidates) by
an electorate of many millions of citizens, the probability of
monotonicity failures (and thus 'unfairness') would becomes almost
fanishingly small.
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">If so, this would be
the case with APR because its general election, in effect, elects all
reps from one district (i.e. the whole country, even though it is
initially administer through all the single-member district in the
country). Moreover, the probability of monotonicty failures
occurring with APR is made even smaller by its giving 'weighted
votes' to each rep in the assembly, i.e. the transferring of
so-called 'surplus votes' is not a part of APR's modified use of STV.</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">What do you think?</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Steve</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br>
</p>
</div></body>
</html>