On 9/10/08, James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Raph Frank > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:50 AM > > > I was looking at their BC-STV proposal. What is the > > difference from normal PR-STV (or is calling it BC-STV just a > > 'marketing ploy' :) )? > > > Depends what you mean by "normal". There are at least six different sets of > rules for > STV-PR now in use for public elections around the world.
Fair enough. So they are just giving an official name to one of them then? > they did propose to transfer all > transferable votes, even when the transfers were not necessary to identify > the last > winner. Unfortunately, this stupid rule was > implemented in the Scottish version of WIGM STV-PR when electronic counts > were > used, but could be dropped in manual counts. You mean if enough candidates have exceeded the quota to fill all the seats, they keep eliminating candidates anyway? I think we have the same rule in Ireland. It is felt fairer as you need to get a certain number of votes to get your deposit back. By transfering the last few votes, more candidates can meet the threshold for getting their money back. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
