Greetings List, The Gilmour James wrote: 14 July 2003 "We have previously debated the merits of Donald's method ("the best method") which seems to have been devised because Donald rejects the Droop quota."
Donald here: Yes!! I do reject the Droop quota for most elections, but I devised my two new methods mainly to provide the voter with a method that can handle the math of allowing the voter to rank candidates and/or parties in any mix, but my two methods, one variant of each STV and Bottoms Up, do have the side benefit of not containing the distortions caused by the Droop quota. Besides, I do not reject the Droop quota entirely, I say it can be used in a non-partisan election in which the jurisdiction has voted to favor the larger factions by giving them the benefit of averaging their votes. It can be used in this type of an election, but only until someone comes up with something better. Gilmour: "Donald also rejects the idea that the purpose of elections is to elect." Donald: I fail to understand why you would say something like this. Elections electing candidates may be the only thing that everyone on this list will agree to and that includes me. Are you merely talking off the top of your head. You can do better than that. Gilmour: "In previous posts he expressed great concern to see every vote transferred to its last possible destination rather than accept that the same winners would be elected without all that paper shuffling." Donald: The value of transferring every vote to its last possible destination is that it will give us a final measure on how well the election turned out, that is, how proportional was the results of the election. Supporters of the Droop quota do not want the final transfer to take place because it will show that Droop elections are not proportional. Gilmour: "Most of the items in Donald's "list of distortions" in STV arise from bad or outdated implementations or attempts at deliberate political interference or simply inappropriate use of a voting system. They are not inherent defects of STV-PR." Donald: While the distortions may not be `inherent defects of STV-PR', they are, never the less, part of current STV. On the one hand you sell people the concept of an ideal pure STV. On the other hand you give them distorted STV. Your right hand doesn't know what your left hand is doing. Gilmour: "My principal objection to Donald's method is that it would entrench the position of the political parties." Donald: If the jurisdiction of a partisan election votes to average the votes of the political parties, then my elimination rule will do the best averaging, better than the averaging done by Droop. Having said that, I fail to see how my variants would entrench the position of the political parties. Each voter still has the power to cross party lines when they rank candidates and/or parties in any mix. Gilmour: "I support the use of STV-PR and oppose the use of all forms of party list PR because I want to see the balance of power shifted away from the parties in favour of the voters." Donald: The ranking of the candidates in STV is best, as long as the STV maintains proportionality, if not, then Open Party List will be best over Droop STV because at least we will have near perfect party proportionality, which is the main purpose of PR. Gilmour: "I want the balance of accountable of elected members shifted from the parties towards the electors who voted for those members." Donald: Again you are showing that your right hand doesn't know what your left hand is doing. On the one hand you profess this noble position, which is a valid position to take, but on the other hand you support the Droop quota, which is counter in results to your noble position. If you do not favor party power then you should not support the Droop quota, for Droop is for the benefit of the parties. Years ago I was discussing Hare vs Droop with Rob Richie, executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy (CV&D). After a few exchanges of emails, his last word on the subject to me was: `I know what you are saying Don, but we need to give something to the larger factions in order to get them to come on board and support election reform.' Now, there is an honest man. He supports Droop in STV, but he does not pretend that his reason is noble, he does not pretend that Droop is the best thing since sliced bread. Regards to all, Donald Greetings List, The Gilmour James wrote: 14 July 2003 "We have previously debated the merits of Donald's method ("the best method") which seems to have been devised because Donald rejects the Droop quota." Donald here: No, it was devised mainly to provide the voter with a method that can handle the math of allowing the voter to rank candidates and/or parties in any mix, but my methods, varients of STV and Bottoms Up, do have the side benefit of not containing the distortions caused by the Droop quota. Besides, I do not reject the Droop quota entirely, I say it can be used in a non-partisan election in which the jurisdiction has voted to favor the larger factions by giving them the benefit of averaging their votes. It can be used in this type of an election, but only until someone comes up with something better. Gilmour: "Donald also rejects the idea that the purpose of elections is to elect." Donald: No, those words of yours are not correct, you are merely talking off the top of your head. I'm in favor of elections electing candidates, that is the only point that everyone on this list does agree upon. You shouldn't make these types of assumptions, that is, falsely saying what someone else accepts or rejects. You can do better than that. Gilmour: "In previous posts he expressed great concern to see every vote transferred to its last possible destination rather than accept that the same winners would be elected without all that paper shuffling." Donald: The value of transferring every vote to its last possible destination is that it will give us a final measure on how well the election turned out, that is, how proportional was the results of the election. Supporters of the Droop quota do not want the final tranfer to take place because it will show that Droop elections are not proportional. Gilmour: "Most of the items in Donald's "list of distortions" in STV arise from bad or outdated implementations or attempts at deliberate political interference or simply inappropriate use of a voting system. They are not inherent defects of STV-PR." Donald: While the distortions may not be `inherent defects of STV-PR', they are, never the less, part of current STV. On the one hand you sell people the concept of an ideal pure STV. On the other hand you give them distorted STV. Your right hand dosen't know what your left hand is doing. Gilmour: "My principal objection to Donald's method is that it would entrench the position of the political parties." Donald: If the jurisdiction of a partisan election votes to average the votes of the political parties, then my elimination rule will do the best averging, better than the averaging done by Droop. Having said that, I fail to see how my variants would entrench the position of the political parties. Each voter still has the power to cross party lines when they rank candidates and/or parties in any mix. Gilmour: "I support the use of STV-PR and oppose the use of all forms of party list PR because I want to see the balance of power shifted away from the parties in favour of the voters." Donald: The ranking of the candidates in STV is best, as long as the STV maintains proportionality, if not, then Open Party List will be best over Droop STV because at least we will have near perfect party proportionality. Gilmour: "I want the balance of accountable of elected members shifted from the parties towards the electors who voted for those members." Donald: Again you are showing that your right hand doesn't know what your left hand is doing. On the one hand you profess this position, which is a valid position to take, but on the other hand you support the Droop quota, which is counter in results to your noble position. If you do not favor party power then you should not support the Droop quota, for it is for the benefit of the parties. Years ago I was discussing Hare vs Droop with Rob Richie, executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy (CV&D). After a few exchanges of emails, his last word on the subject to me was: `I know what you are saying Don, but we need to give something to the larger factions in order to get them to come on board and support election reform.' Now, there is an honest man. He supports Droop in STV, but he does not pretent that Droop is the best thing since sliced bread. Regards to all, Donald ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info