Dammit, I found an oversight in the algorithm. Corrected algorithm follows.

Naiive proposal for an N-seat version of Bucklins' procedure: All voters submit ballots ranking their most-preferred candidates, as many or as few as they wish. (I suppose ties could be allowed, each tie counting as a fractional vote for each of the tied candidates.) The "winning threshold" I propose to be the Droop quota, i.e. (total # of ballots / # of seats plus one.)
(1) Count voter's ballots. Each ballot counts as a vote for the highest-ranked candidate still in the race, i.e. not yet awarded a seat. Add these counts to each candidate's previous total.
(2) Has any candidate reached the winning threshold?
If not, count voters' next-ranked choices and add these counts to the candidates' totals. (If a ballot has nobody ranked next, it counts as an abstention. If there are no ballots with anyone ranked next, go back to (1).) Go back to (2).
If so, go to (3).
(3) Are there now more "winners" than seats? I.e. do we now have more candidates with vote totals above the winning threshold than there are seats remaining to be filled?
If so, award the seats to the candidates with the largest totals. (If two such candidates are tied, break the tie by a Borda Count. If they are tied by Borda Count, flip a coin.) You are finished.
If not, award seats to those candidates who have exceeded the threshold. Go to (4).
(4) Have all seats been filled?
If not, recalculate the winning threshold for the remaining seats. Go back to (1).
If so, you are finished.


"I really hate this damned machine, I wish that they would sell it. It never does quite what I want, but only what I tell it."
--
----------------------------------
John B. Hodges, jbhodges@ @usit.net
Do Justice, Love Mercy, and Be Irreverent.
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Reply via email to