Comments on: Presentation for Vancouver’s city council http://cognitivesandbox.com/posts/presentation-for-vancouvers-city-council/ Vegan cooking, unix tidbits and other minor discoveries Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:32:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Brad Beattiehttp://cognitivesandbox.com/posts/presentation-for-vancouvers-city-council/comment-page-1/#comment-174 Brad Beattie Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:23:57 +0000 http://www.cognitivesandbox.com/?p=1966#comment-174 <blockquote>"AV (aka IRV, aka STV@1) eliminates strategic voting."</blockquote> It doesn't, nor does the system I propose. Indeed, no system is immune to strategic voting (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbard-Satterthwaite_theorem" rel="nofollow">Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem</a>). It can also be reasonably demonstrated where <a href="http://elections.cognitivesandbox.com/#ignored" rel="nofollow">IRV breaks down</a>. The underlying issue with that aggregate system is that it can ignore the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_criterion" rel="nofollow">secondary preferences of large demographics</a>. I get that it's better than FPTP, but I wouldn't claim that it's ideal. I get that people are entrenched in their ideas and I'm willing to stand behind any of them that improve the system that we have now. However, I don't see how that precludes me from describing a better system.

“AV (aka IRV, aka STV@1) eliminates strategic voting.”

It doesn’t, nor does the system I propose. Indeed, no system is immune to strategic voting (Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem). It can also be reasonably demonstrated where IRV breaks down. The underlying issue with that aggregate system is that it can ignore the secondary preferences of large demographics. I get that it’s better than FPTP, but I wouldn’t claim that it’s ideal.

I get that people are entrenched in their ideas and I’m willing to stand behind any of them that improve the system that we have now. However, I don’t see how that precludes me from describing a better system.

]]> By: Howard Cherniackhttp://cognitivesandbox.com/posts/presentation-for-vancouvers-city-council/comment-page-1/#comment-173 Howard Cherniack Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:32:35 +0000 http://www.cognitivesandbox.com/?p=1966#comment-173 I'm afraid that I don't see that this option is any easier to explain or count than STV, and, if one were to go to single-member constituencies (which are problematic at best in terms of representation), it would seem that the Alternative Vote (=STV with single-member constituencies; eliminates strategic voting but does not ensure proportional representation) would be a lot easier and fairer. Unfortunately, the fix is in: the Left has long been invested in a "ward system" (single-member constituencies elected by FPTP), and this was endorsed by the City commission on electoral reform a few years ago. (Ironic: the push is on for replicating on a municipal level the provincial and federal system we are finding so unsatisfactory.) I can't see that any other electoral system stands a chance as an alternative to the current 10-member FPTP we now have. Sorry. I’m afraid that I don’t see that this option is any easier to explain or count than STV, and, if one were to go to single-member constituencies (which are problematic at best in terms of representation), it would seem that the Alternative Vote (=STV with single-member constituencies; eliminates strategic voting but does not ensure proportional representation) would be a lot easier and fairer.

Unfortunately, the fix is in: the Left has long been invested in a “ward system” (single-member constituencies elected by FPTP), and this was endorsed by the City commission on electoral reform a few years ago. (Ironic: the push is on for replicating on a municipal level the provincial and federal system we are finding so unsatisfactory.) I can’t see that any other electoral system stands a chance as an alternative to the current 10-member FPTP we now have. Sorry.

]]>