>
> > What exactly is your problem with that simpler system?
>
>Bill,
>
> It honestly seems to me that you are saying "3.1 works perfectly well
>for Pi, and it sure is, as you readily admit, better than 3."
Actually, I don't agree with your conclusion that the simpler system is less perfect. I've explained why I think that your more complex counting system is less fair. You keep asserting and assuming that I'm wrong and I keep asking you why. You keep ducking the question. I can only keep asking it then.
So, once again. What exactly is your problem with that simpler system? Why do you believe the more complex matrix count produces a better result?
> Pi exists. When the best approximation of the will of the voters is
>used, it is actually _simpler_ for the voters than STV.
Again, why? A bald assertion won't suffice. We're not talking about Pi.
> When it has
>been strayed from in the past, it has always worked against what I would
>call progress.
Another bald assertion. I'm not convinced by bald assertions that skip the reasoning process. What exactly is it about STV that you believe works against progress? Come on, its a simple enough question, answer it. Don't bluster, don't wriggle and squirm like a worm on a hook. Just answer the question.
> You say this isn't a mathematical problem, which proves you don't
>understand the math.
Bluster. What is the problem you are trying to fix?
> You say STV is simpler, which sort of proves you
>don't understand the problem.
Does it? Or maybe what you see as a problem isn't something I see as a problem. We'll never know if you refuse to tell us what it is you see as the problem with STV.
> I worked on the graphics issue last evening. Have been busy so far
>today, but will proceed now. I'm going to use a nice tool which allows
>me to spin the three-dimensional charts around by moving the mouse over
>the image :)
I'm sure you can. But what we're discussing here is why a complex mathematical counting system, that is hard to explain, is even necessary. What are you trying to achieve with a complex system that a simpler system wouldn't achieve? It isn't as though complex is necessarily better. This isn't rocket science, this is democracy. By definition, democracy is for everyone, not just mathematicians. So there are distinct advantages to a system which everyone is capable of grasping.
If there are serious shortcoming in the simpler system (as there are with first past the post) then of course it makes sense to use a more complex system. But you haven't explained what you believe the shortcomings with the Single Transferrable Vote is. The main difference I can see between STV and the matrix count you favour is that the matrix count attempts to penalise candidates representing minority interests, if a significant percentage of the majority (voters for the two major parties) strongly disapprove of them.
I don't understand why you would think that is a good thing to do. You haven't even admitted that you do think that is a good thing to do. You refuse to say what objective you are trying to achieve with the matrix count, you just keep baldly asserting that if I don't agree with your (unstated) objective then I must be a mathematical imbecile.
Well mate, I'm no mathematical genius, but neither am I a mathematical imbecile. I don't think that's even the issue. But I don't know for sure, because you keep evading the issue.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas