Iterative Quota Voting
I am very uncomfortable with complexity of the process used for transferring surplus marks of the candidates in the STV counting process. That counting process is very difficult for most voters to follow. In BC they could easily be swayed to vote against BC-STV on 17 May 2005 even though it is a big improvement over First Past The Post. Thus I was inspired to propose a different and simpler counting method which avoids fractions and incorporates some aspects of approval voting. For lack of a better name, it is called "iterative quota voting" (IQV). Perhaps it resembles some existing voting methods already, but since I'm new to this endeavour, it may be old hat to some of you.
So here it goes:
Voters can mark their ballots preferentially from 1 up to N for any of C candidates vying for N seats. The preference numbers on the ballot have to start at 1. The numbers should have no gaps, but repetitions are allowed, e.g., two or more candidates may have the same number. This latter feature provides a notion of approval voting, if more than one candidate is acceptable at a given preference level to a given voter. He can only put one mark against a given candidate.
For round r,
The quota Qr = ((Mr/Cr)/(Nr+1)) +1 where Mr is the number of marks (labeled 1 through r, including repetitions) for the remaining candidates on all the ballots
Cr is the number of candidates remaining
Nr is the number of vacant seats remaining
Note: the quota at each round is based on counting the marks on all the ballots, not the number of ballots.
Once a candidate has exceeded the quota at a given round, as a voter, all I'm concerned about is that the remaining marks ("1" to "number of round") for the remaining candidates on my, and everyone else's, ballot are counted at full value on the subsequent rounds. Once candidates have been selected, i.e., passed the quota, the next round can be considered as a brand new election for the remaining seats using a new quota.
Once a candidate(s)' count has passed the quota, all marks ("1" up to "N") against their name(s) are excluded on the next round. Thus for round two, a new quota is calculated based on the number of remaining seats and number of candidates left and the total numbers of marks labeled "1" and "2" on all the ballots for these remaining candidates. Those candidates whose count of "1's" and "2's" exceed the new quota are elected and all their marks are excluded in the next round and a new quota is calculated based on the number of remaining seats, the remaining candidates left and the total number of marks labeled "1", "2" and "3" for the remaining candidates. And so on, until all the seats are filled.
Could this still be considered a variant of iterative approval voting or is it something else? I think it is fair since it ensures that at each round, all marks ("1" through "number of round") for each remaining candidate are counted at full value. This process would be simpler to explain to the voters, since it avoids fractions and there are a fewer number of decisions in the process. Once all the seats have been filled by round r <= y, any marks labeled "y+1" or greater are no longer needed, except to record the number and value of the marks the losers obtained. Those marks (1 to y >= last round +1) which belong to the losers, after all the seats have been filled, have no further influence on those who already were elected. Votes that really "count" in selecting winners have not been discarded. No ballots have been discarded in the counting process.
Each mark on all the ballots is considered at full value at a given round like in approval voting, as opposed to the STV process a voter's ballot has only the total weight of one vote equal to 1, no matter how many preferences he marks on his ballot. Thus his vote may be divided into two fractions, one for the winner of the round and passing a fractional surplus of his one vote to the other preferences on his ballot. In the IQV approach, a voter has up to N votes of equal weight but these votes are only progressively counted at each round based on their preference value.
It would be interesting to see how results based on this approach would differ from BC-STV results.
We should not underestimate the power of simplicity in being able to convince the voter of the merits of a counting process which is easy to visualize. The counting process should be simply enough that the majority of voters/ scrutineers can easily do it manually (especially whenever electrical power is not available for computers).
Yours democratically,
Jim Ronback Tsawwassen, BC
PS Comments would be appreciated for my edification.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
