Those who have no access to the Internet and do not wish to have, need not be concerned, since a printed copy will continue to be available from ERS as before.
As Editor, I will ensure that those without Internet access are at no disadvantage. On the other hand, I would be happy to receive articles by e-mail to Brian.Wichmann@freenet.co.uk. Material should be in standard formats, such as HTML or PDF (and also RTF), rather than in proprietary word-processor formats.
Although the ERS Web site will have the current issue, there will be some delay in conversion and checking before it will be available there. Hence the printed copy should be available first, and that version should be regarded as the authoritative source (due to conversion and presentation problems with HTML).I hope to arrange for all the back issues to be available on the Internet via a suitable Archive site.
I have prepared a 'combined' issue for all of Issues 1-10, which is available from me in electronic format (HTML and PDF). Unfortunately, since this combined issue amounted to 112 pages, it has not been possible for it to be professionally printed, since the cost is excessive for the likely sales.
The delay in this issue indicates the continuing problem of the lack of material from a small authorship. I am hoping that exposure of the material to international access via the Internet will encourage other parties to contribute in the future.
In the first article, Hugh Warren suggests a way of merging STV with FPTP, at least as far as the ballot itself is concerned. Could this encourage STV counting? Comments are welcome.
Philip Kestelman provides another article on proportionality with reference to the Jenkins proposals.
Earl Kitchener makes a suggestion that Borda scores should be used to break a tie rather than relying on a random choice (at least in the first instance).
My own article on checking two STV computer programs has proved controversial due to the issue of quota-reduction which is one of the new features in the 1997 edition of the ERS hand-counting rules. This issue is explained in the following article by David Hill; and Colin Rosenstiel, as co-author of the new rules, provides a response. Readers should judge for themselves whether a revision to the rules is required to ensure that no ambiguity exists.