On 5.7.2011, at 11.19, Russ Paielli wrote:
> If one wants to simplify the inheritance rules even more then we might end up
> using a tree method (I seem to mention it in every mail I send:). In that
> approach there is no risk of having loops in the candidate transfer order.
> Votes would be counted right away for each branch, and the candidate of the
> largest brach of the largest branch of the ... would win.
>
> That sounds interesting, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you
> give an example?
Here's one example.
Tree of candidates + number of personal votes + sum of votes of candidates of
each branch:
Branch1 (13)
Branch1.1 (7)
A (4)
B (3)
Branch1.2 (6)
C (6)
Branch2 (18)
Branch2.1 (12)
D (5)
E (7)
Branch2.2 (5)
F (3)
G (2)
Branch2.3 (1)
H (1)
- Branch2 has more votes than Branch1 => Branch2 wins
- Branch2.1 has more votes than Branch2.2 and Branch2.3 => Branch2.1 wins
- candidate E has more votes than candidate D => candidate E wins
The tree approach thus forces the order of transfer to be non-cyclic. The
transfer order of candidate E is E > D > {F, G, H}.
The tree format can be printed on paper and it is easy to grasp. The ballot
sheet may also follow the same tree format. Branches may have names (e.g. party
names) or be unnamed. Left wing parties could join forces under one branch.
Candidates of one party could be divided in smaller groups. Or maybe the
branches have no party names and party affiliations, maybe just descriptive
names, maybe no branch names at all.
Juho
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
