FW: [EM] 2 Nov 1999 Cambridge, Mass City Council Election - Summa ry Results

[LAYTON Craig]

Blake wrote:

>I'm a little confused by what you mean by that.  Presumably, a ballot
>is exhausted/wasted when it normally would be transferred, but it
>lists no more candidates.  So, if everyone listed all the candidates
>in order, there would be no exhausted votes, no matter what the
>quota.  I don't know if the quota has any effect, but isn't the
>primary cause of wasted votes incomplete ballots?  

I would consider a vote is to be 'wasted' if it is neither used to make up a
quota for an elected candidate, nor used to elect a candidate who does not
get a quota.  Where there is n candidates left uneliminated, none of whom
have quotas, and there is n-1 seats left to be filled, then the votes for
the candidate who is eliminated are wasted.  This is because, even if one
holds that the votes are redistributed from this candidate, those votes do
not assist to elect any candidate over any other candidate.  They are
irrelevant and hence are 'wasted'.  If everyone lists all the candidates,
there will still be some wasted votes.  However, it is generally not a good
idea to require voters to list all candidates.

The rule (that exists in all optional preferential quota STV systems in
practice) that when there are n candidates left and n seats to fill, all
those candidates are declared elected, is the weakest part of this system.
I had previously proposed that votes are to be redistributed and candidates
eliminated until only one candidate remains (where no candidates can get a
quota).  That candidate is declared elected.  Then, if there are any seats
left to fill, all votes are re-activated, and transferred from already
elected candidates at full transfer value of 1.  This would decrease the
number of 'wasted' votes in an optional-preferential quota STV, as wasted
votes get another chance to elect a candidate.