[EM] Candidate vote transfer p.r. method, 16 Jan 2000

[Craig Carey]

Note: I apologize to "DEMOREP1" for my ill timed adverse comments about
 his location, nationality, health, gender [no data], former interests,
 and location.

While I am writing, perhaps "DEMOREP1", why tell us why legislative
 bodies would prefer her/his method?.

Maybe DEMOREP1 thinks STV is just too complex, but it vague as some
 crucial ideas in this sentence. (Once again, the problems are seemingly
 impossible to miss once a little applying of the method is done).

>> [(f) If a candidate has a number of votes more than the total votes for
>> all candidates divided by N (rounded up if a fraction), then the excess
>> votes over such ratio shall be transferred to the highest remaining
>> candidate on his/her list (starting with the candidate with the highest
>> excess votes).]


How does this 16 to 17 Jan 2000 DEMOREP1 method solve this simple
 6 candidate 2 winner election example ?:


AB  21
AC  20
AD  20
AE  20
AF  19
B    0
C    x

x > 0
Quota = (100+x)/2 ? [Quota is unknown since N is undefined]

The DEMOREP1 "pr" method seems to have substituted for the STV idea of
 "transfer values", some quite inadequately defined words that drop
 persons executing the requirements of the act, into a quite huge doubt
 that the method has ever been tested. I presume that as the months
 passed, it wasn't tested.

Also, one more matter:
 Which candidate is this candidate ?: "... the candidate with the
  highest excess votes". That is A isn't. If you meant, of the
  candidates that have no surplus, it would be C.
 So the 1st step of the method is to transfer part or all of the
  surplus away from A ("the candidate with the highest excess votes")
  or else it would be C, (B has 0).

 That surplus is transferred onto the "highest remaining candidate on
  his/her (i.e. A's) list". So that is quite clear: the 21 AB votes
  (or  just some of them [this part isn't defined], are transferred
  onto candidate C
  
 That is unusual: transferring AB votes onto C, just before the
  infinite loop clauses and reject a needed winner clauses are setpped
  into. DEMOREP1 just keeps sending the method to the list without
  saying what peculiar attributes it has that makes it interesting.

This method is been dogged to the last breath and beyond.  (24-Jan-00)



Mr G. A. Craig Carey