<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<big><br>
Richard Fobes is saying that the STV glass is not half full, it is
half empty. He is right – sort of. But not that right! The proof
of the pudding is in the eating, as shown by the examples given by
James Gilmour. STV returning officers have long known that they
take short-cuts with the manual count, that are not strictly
logical, but keep the procedure manageable. <br>
<br>
Gilmour advised the BC Citizens Assembly on the more sound version
of the Gregory method of transferable voting. <br>
Essentially, proportional surplus transfer is a standard method in
statistics, known as weighting in arithmetic proportion. If
transferable voting is “extremely flawed” then so is basic
statistics.<br>
One has to keep things in proportion.<br>
<br>
(Borda method is essentially what statisticians call weighting in
arithmetic [series, or geometric series or harmonic series]
progression, which they use as an estimate of the relative
importance of categories of data, when they do not possess actual
information of their weights, in proportion to each other.)<br>
<br>
From<br>
Richard Lung<br>
<br>
<br>
On 23/02/2017 17:54, VoteFair wrote:</big>
<blockquote
cite="mid:fd443e3b-05c7-a917-d1ac-734a0c3212d7@votefair.org"
type="cite"><big>On 2/22/2017 3:45 PM, Richard Lung wrote:
<br>
>
<br>
> Don't understand your remark about STV ...
<br>
> ... for a single national constituency.
<br>
> ...
<br>
> The HG Wells formula is "Proportional representation by the
single
<br>
> transferable vote in large constituencies."
<br>
<br>
I assume you are referring to this statement:
<br>
<br>
>> STV (the Single Transferable Vote) and similar
methods(!) are designed
<br>
>> for a small number of available seats, and it is a
mistake to think
<br>
>> that such a method can simply be used repeatedly to
achieve fair
<br>
>> results for a large number of available parliament
seats.
<br>
<br>
Although the designers think that they designed STV to handle a
full national legislature/parliament, the method has the same
flaw as instant-runoff voting (IRV), namely the method looks at
each voter's currently top choice (after any candidate
eliminations), and that approach -- of assuming the candidate
with the most such "votes" is the most popular (or the inverse,
assuming that the candidate with the fewest such votes is least
popular) -- is extremely flawed.
<br>
<br>
In other words, STV is like using single-mark ballots, except
that when a voter's marked candidate is eliminated, then the
voter automatically supplies an alternate single-mark ballot.
<br>
<br>
In spite of that major unfairness/flaw, STV would provide
reasonably acceptable results if only two seats were being
filled. And if a nation has 3 equally dominant political
parties, then filling 3 seats for each district would work.
<br>
<br>
However, as I stated before, STV would not provide fair results
if it were used for a full national legislature.
<br>
<br>
Recently, in Canada, some people have been promoting the idea of
using STV to elect about 5 MPs (members of parliament) from each
district (which they call a "riding"). That would produce very
unfair results! That's what I had in mind when I referred to
using STV repeatedly.
<br>
<br>
Although Schulze-STV uses pairwise counting, it still has the
same flaw that it would not provide overall proportional results
if it were used repeatedly to fill more than 2 (or maybe 3)
seats in each district. And this method, and similar methods,
would also provide flawed results if it were used to fill all
the seats in a national legislature (and those reasons are
explained in my book).
<br>
<br>
So, OK, I was not clear about the meaning of the word
"designed." I was referring to the effect of the design rather
than the intention of the design.
<br>
<br>
Richard Fobes
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/22/2017 3:45 PM, Richard Lung wrote:
<br>
</big>
<blockquote type="cite"><big>
<br>
Don't understand your remark about STV, the name given by
Thomas Hare,
<br>
who invented it for a single national constituency. (Tho Mill
was
<br>
prepared to be flexible about this, when he moved "Mr Hare's
system" of
<br>
Personal Representation in parliament.
<br>
The HG Wells formula is "Proportional representation by the
single
<br>
transferable vote in large constituencies."
<br>
<br>
Agree with you about preference voting essential for fairness.
Do you
<br>
have any good source for your assertion that the lack of it in
European
<br>
party-proportional methods makes them especially vulnerable to
moneied
<br>
influence?
<br>
You could say the same, for instance about the nuclear lobby
in Britain
<br>
(tho not Scotland).
<br>
<br>
from Richard Lung.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 22/02/2017 00:24, VoteFair wrote:
<br>
</big>
<blockquote type="cite"><big>On 2/20/2017 11:57 PM, Armando
wrote:
<br>
> ...
<br>
> I am looking for multi-winner election with fair
proportional
<br>
> representation.
<br>
> ...
<br>
> I would very appreciate if you can help me giving
“guidelines”,
<br>
> explaining pros and cons, advising further readings.
...
<br>
<br>
I suggest that you look at VoteFair ranking, which is a
method I
<br>
developed years ago, over a span of about a decade.
<br>
<br>
It is described in detail in my book "Ending The Hidden
Unfairness In
<br>
U.S. Elections," which is available through multiple e-book
reading
<br>
platforms. The book includes lots of illustrations to make
the
<br>
concepts easier for "average" (non-math) readers to
understand. (With
<br>
so many illustrations the file size is large and the low
price
<br>
basically just covers the download fee.)
<br>
<br>
Near the end of the book I explain that the same system
would work in
<br>
other nations simply by increasing the number of parliament
members
<br>
who are elected using cross-district voting methods.
<br>
<br>
Based on your questions, here is what I think is the most
important
<br>
concept for you to understand:
<br>
<br>
STV (the Single Transferable Vote) and similar methods(!)
are designed
<br>
for a small number of available seats, and it is a mistake
to think
<br>
that such a method can simply be used repeatedly to achieve
fair
<br>
results for a large number of available parliament seats.
<br>
<br>
You seem to correctly understand that ranking candidates --
rather
<br>
than using single-mark ballots -- is essential for fair
results. PR
<br>
(proportional representation) methods in Europe did not get
this part
<br>
of PR correct. That's why it is easy for campaign
contributions
<br>
(money) to easily control European politics.
<br>
<br>
With these concepts in mind, I suggest that you read the
overview of
<br>
VoteFair ranking, which is here:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.votefair.org/calculation_details.html">http://www.votefair.org/calculation_details.html</a>
<br>
</big><big><br>
</big></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>