James Gilmour jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk > raphfrk at netscape.net> Sent: 16 April 2007 20:08 > > It might be easier to explain. The real problem with PR-STV is the > > fractional transfers. They are not very easy to explain. > > Fractional transfers are absolutely essential for STV-PR (unless you > accept a small element of chance). Without the correct transfers of > surpluses you cannot get a proportional result. Some students' unions > in the UK use this corrupted version, but it cannot rightly be called > "STV-PR" because it distorts the proportionality expressed by the > voters. It seems to me that this method is pretty close to picking random votes for the surplus transfers. Once a candidate hits the quota, he stops getting any additional votes. In fact, random selection for surplus transfers might be an even easier way to explain it. If the votes were: 60: A1>A2>A3>B1>B2 40: B1>B2>A1>A2>A3 and 3 seats to allocate, the counting would go something like quota = 100/4 = 25 After approx 42 votes are counted, the count would be A1: 25 A2: 0 A3: 0 B1: 17 B2: 0 A1 is deemed elected, the 60 group will not start been given to A2 After approx another 20 votes, the totals will be A1: 25 (elected) A2: 12 A3: 0 B1: 25 B2: 0 B1 is elected B1 is deemed elected. After approx another 22 votes, the totals will be A1: 25 (elected) A2: 25 (elected) a3: 0 B1: 25 (elected) B2: 9 This gives the 2-1 split of the seats as required by the Droop quota. 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