Bob Richard electorama at robertjrichard.com wrote: > > The (alleged) complexity of STV is entirely a matter of the counting > process; the task for the voter is actually very simple. Having said > that, the conventional ways of explaining the count invariably lose > audiences, and we need to learn how to present it better. There was a site which proposed this as an STV-PR method. Quote = votes/(seats + 1) , rounded up go through each vote in order assign vote to highest ranked remaining candidate on ballot remaining means not elected or eliminated a candidate is elected if he reaches the quota When the pool of votes is empty, eliminating the lowest candidate and return ballots assigned to him to the pool keep going until the number of candidates = number of elected candidates It does have the disadvantage that the order of the votes could have an effect, this leads to some randomness. It might be easier to explain. The real problem with PR-STV is the fractional transfers. They are not very easy to explain. Raphfrk -------------------- Interesting site "what if anyone could modify the laws" www.wikocracy.com ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info