Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: stv

Expand Messages
  • walto
    Thanks for that citation, Harry. I just finished reading Nic Tideman s (interesting and informative) paper. It suggests to me, however, that the single
    Message 1 of 22 , Jun 4, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for that citation, Harry. I just finished reading Nic Tideman's (interesting and informative) paper. It suggests to me, however, that the single non-transferable ballot (in a multi-seat district) is superior to all the various versions of stv provided in that paper.

      If there are 5 seats in my district, in a sn-tv system, we geoists just might get a representative. And if my views are represented by SOMEBODY, I don't care so much who the other 4 reps will be. OTOH, the sn-tv suggests (at least to me) that the elected officials in such a system actually represent only their electors and nobody else, And that further suggests that the authority of each of the 5 representatives should be weighted by the size of votes received.

      That is, all the representatives in an stv system seem to represent every voter, since each vote ranked ALL (or at least many of) the candidates and can be expected to factor in the election of all those who win. But in a sn-tv system of the type I'm proposing, electors can be expected to bullet their favorite candidate and have no say in how any of the others do. Thus it seems that (as in the old Soviet duma, e.g.) interests rather than districts would be represented. But, since we want democracy to be really reflective of various majorities and not just treat all interest groups as if they were the same size, it seems to me that the weights of the votes of those elected should not be equal (i.e., in my example, 1/5 of the district).

      Anyhow, I'd be curious to hear what Nic thinks about (the much simpler, both to understand and administer) single non-transferable ballot system of voting.

      W

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:
      >
      > Here is what Nic Tideman wrote. (Better Voting Methods Through Technology:
      > The Refinement-Manageability Trade-Off in the Single Transferable Vote)
      >
      >
      >
      > He tells me in reply to your point about counting order:
      >
      >
      >
      > "That is true of the system used in Ireland, and perhaps of the system used
      > in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but not of most systems for counting the Single
      > Transferable Vote.
      >
      > The reason it is true of the Irish system is that they transfer whole votes.
      > Most other systems transfer fractions of votes, which makes it possible to
      > have a result that is independent of the order in which the votes are
      > counted."
      >
      >
      >
      > Harry
      >
      >
      >
      > From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      > Of walto
      > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 1:34 PM
      > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [LandCafe] Re: stv
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe%40yahoogroups.com> ,
      > "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@> wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe%40yahoogroups.com> ,
      > "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@> wrote:
      > >
      > > > Using STV with multiple constituencies not only
      > > > provides an excellent proportional election, it
      > > > also allows voters to choose between candidates
      > > > of their parties.
      > > >
      > > > That it takes longer to make the count isn't
      > > > relevant if we finish with a result that more
      > > > clearly indicates the preferences of the voters.
      > >
      > > While these are worthy goals, they are not the
      > > only goals. STV does not address the problems of
      > > ungovernable minority parliaments, ministerial
      > > obligation to local interests, and the double
      > > workload of being both a representative of
      > > local interests and a member of cabinet.
      > >
      > > And Harry, please trim your responses to include
      > > only context necessary to understand your response.
      > >
      > > -- Roy Langston
      > >
      >
      > I don't like to repeat, but I will say one more time, that my main problem
      > with the single transferable ballot is that depending on the order in which
      > the ballots are counted, you can get different people elected. Even if there
      > were nothing else wrong with it, that seems to me dispositive.
      >
      > W
      >
    • David Reed
      @walto Ears prick up when you hear talk of getting Land taxers elected even though low down the poll.Surely the answer is the Borda count which is what most
      Message 2 of 22 , Jun 4, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        @walto
        Ears prick up when you hear talk of getting Land taxers elected even though low down the poll.Surely the answer is the Borda count which is what most people think PR is?
        I am no expert but I would have thought multi member constituencies plus Borda counting gets rid of problem of fractions.Though there are some obvious disadvantages.But who cares if a load of land taxers get elected on fourth/ fifth choice  votes? 


        Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now.
      • walto
        ... I would care, my friend. I d party like it s 2099. W
        Message 3 of 22 , Jun 5, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > @walto
          >
          > Ears prick up when you hear talk of getting Land taxers elected even though low down the poll.Surely the answer is the Borda count which is what most people think PR is?
          >
          > I am no expert but I would have thought multi member constituencies plus Borda counting gets rid of problem of fractions.Though there are some obvious disadvantages.But who cares if a load of land taxers get elected on fourth/ fifth choice votes?
          >


          I would care, my friend. I'd party like it's 2099.

          W
        • Fred Foldvary
          ... Is local land-based public revenue bad? For example, the idiots in Berkeley California are enacting parcel taxes based on the square footage of buildings
          Message 4 of 22 , Jun 5, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            --- On Fri, 6/4/10, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
            > But who cares if a load of land taxers get elected on fourth/ fifth choice  votes? <

            Is local land-based public revenue bad?

            For example, the idiots in Berkeley California are enacting parcel taxes based on the square footage of buildings instead of lots.

            Fred Foldvary
          • walto
            According to the Wikipedia article, one downside of the Borda system in districts with multiple winners is this:- Unlike most other voting systems, in the
            Message 5 of 22 , Jun 5, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              According to the Wikipedia article, one downside of the Borda system in districts with multiple winners is this:-

              "Unlike most other voting systems, in the Borda count it is possible for a candidate who is the first preference of an absolute majority of voters to fail to be elected; this is because the Borda count affords greater importance to a voter's lower preferences than most other systems...."


              IMO, however, those in the minority would learn to bullet their faves, anyhow, so the effect would be not much different than sn-tv; to the extent that the results ARE different, however, it would likely hurt "oddball minorities" like us, and favor "consensus candidates."

              FWIW, the problems for sn-tv pointed out by the WIKI article on that system involve parties putting up candidates intended to split the votes of their adversaries, and parties possibly getting the most votes, but fewer winners than some other parties. These are not the sort of disadvantages that minorites like us should worry about. IMO, sn-tv is the system that is most designed to help groups like us. Most other systems are designed to prevent us from getting any representation.

              W


              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > @walto
              >
              > Ears prick up when you hear talk of getting Land taxers elected even though low down the poll.Surely the answer is the Borda count which is what most people think PR is?
              >
              > I am no expert but I would have thought multi member constituencies plus Borda counting gets rid of problem of fractions.Though there are some obvious disadvantages.But who cares if a load of land taxers get elected on fourth/ fifth choice votes?
              >
              > _________________________________________________________________
              > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
              >
            • roy_langston1
              ... Talk about your deal breakers.... ... Hearts and minds first, votes and implementation later. -- Roy Langston
              Message 6 of 22 , Jun 5, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...>
                wrote:

                > According to the Wikipedia article, one downside of
                > the Borda system in districts with multiple winners
                > is this:-
                >
                > "Unlike most other voting systems, in the Borda
                > count it is possible for a candidate who is the
                > first preference of an absolute majority of voters
                > to fail to be elected;

                Talk about your deal breakers....

                > IMO, sn-tv is the system that is most designed to help
                > groups like us. Most other systems are designed to
                > prevent us from getting any representation.

                Hearts and minds first, votes and implementation later.

                -- Roy Langston
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.