> > --- On Tue, 6/1/09, James Gilmour <jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote: > > "If the vote for any one candidate equals or exceeds > > the votes of all the other candidates combined, that candidate shall > > be declared elected." > > > Here you will see there is no reference to "a > > quota", nor is there any reference to "a > > majority" of any kind.
Juho Laatu > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:31 AM > Good definition. One could use also term > "majority" in the definition but maybe better not. Juho, most certainly NOT. The whole point of that wording in the ERS IRV (Alternative Vote) rules is that it completely avoids the word "majority" which can be given a variety of different meanings. As we can see from some of the posts to this lists even today, there are those who completely reject any idea of the winner having a "majority" in any IRV election. The ERS wording also makes it clear that the comparison to be made is of the numbers of votes for the candidates at the CURRENT stage of the count. This is the correct approach because this is an STV election in which the preferences marked on the ballot papers are contingency choices. So if at stage 2 or some later stage, some who voted at stage 1 now opt out and do not indicate any further preferences, they are, in accordance with their expressed wish, left out of the decision-making process about the remaining candidates. James No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.3/1877 - Release Date: 05/01/2009 19:20 ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
