Anthony O'Neal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (This is the election I pulled out of the Wikipedia article for CPO-STV. > I just didn't feel like making up an election where the results from > CPO-STV and STV differ right now. If you want to see how > the results for the CPO-STV and STV results were arrived upon, then > go to the article) > >(PS, does anyone know what the BTR part of BTR-IRV means? > Honestly, I can't figure it out, but that's what Warren on Rangevoting.com > calls it. I'm thinking of changing the name to Majority Elimination by IRV, > or ME-IRV, and ME-STV, but if BTR makes more sense...)
It is probably "Bottom Two Runoff" or something similar. > Now for this election, using the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota of votes/seats + 1, > the amount needed to get elected is 25 votes. So Andrea and Carter are > immediately declared elected, as their amount of votes exceeds the quota. Why not use the Droop quota, that is much fairer? Otherwise, "vote management" is a viable strategy. If a party has 44% of the vote and can manage to split the vote evenly between two candidates 22% each, then they both get elected. If they don't bother with vote management, the more popular candidate will only be able to transfer votes above 25%. The second candidate will only get 19% of the vote which isn't enough for a 2nd seat. The system of election should not encourage tactical voting if possible, people should be encouraged to vote honestly. > I believe that the second method, not counting already consumed voters, > is the proper method, but this may just be bias since I'm trying to paint my > method out to be simialar to CPO-STV. I have presented both, so if any > of you know more about the subject feel free to point me in the right direction. That seems fair. It is unreasonable that people who have already elected a candidate (or will elect a candidate) should have a say in who gets eliminated. What about something like multiple stages Stage 1: standard PR-STV is used to select potential winners. Stage 2+: BTR-STV is run to select a (potentially) different set of potential winners Ballots which are held by potential winners from the previous stage or candidates from the current stage who have been deemed elected shall not be considered when determing which of the bottom two should be eliminated (unless they are held by one of the bottom two) Keep going until 3 stages in sequence result in the same set of potential winners and deem those elected After a cutoff number of stages, either select the winners of the last stage or the winners of the second last stage as winners by a "coin toss". I wonder if this diminishes the problem that BTR violates later no harm. Your lower ranked choices will not be considered unless your current preference is unlikely to get elected. ___________________________________________________ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info