[EM] Methods of elimination in quota preferential STV

[LAYTON Craig]

Yes, I am.  The exclusion of those with the least votes (transfered or
original 1st preferences) would seem to have the same problems as IRV, with
the possibility that it could fail fundamental tests like eliminating a
Condorcet winner (obviously this is much less likely than in IRV),
monotonicity &c.  Some alternatives would be to rank the votes using Borda
or Kemeny-Young &c. at the start, and progressively eliminate the lowest
ranked (courtesy of Markus Schulze) or eliminating the bottom candidates
using a quota, and redistribute their votes at a reduced transfer value (if
I understand Craig Carey correctly).

Craig

-----Original Message-----
From: David Catchpole [mailto:s349436 at student.uq.edu.au]
Sent: Thursday, 5 October 2000 9:47
To: 'election-methods-list at eskimo.com'
Subject: RE: [EM] Methods of elimination in quota preferential STV


I don't quite get you. Are you asking about alternatives to exclusion?

On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, LAYTON Craig wrote:

> Yep, but I was considering the basis for excluding candidates in the first
> place.  If, for a moment, you accept the system of electing by quotas and
> distributing surplus votes at fractional values (an assumption I might be
> less inclined to make after I've looked more closely at Craig Carey's
> arguments), the basis for eliminating candidates when you get to a round
of
> voting in which there is no candidate with a quota is still something that
> doesn't seem very clear.  In fact, once the eliminated candidates'
> preferences start affecting the count, the result seems to become
> increasingly arbitrary.
> 
> >Hi Layton,
> >
> >where Nc is the number of candidates remaining that have not been elected
> >or excluded, one can conduct a "sub" STV election of Nc-1 candidates. The
> >candidate left over can be excluded.
> 
> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
"I only said we'd make it across"
				-"Road Trip"