# [EM] 12/22/02 - Markus Schulze Wrote and Wrote again:

Tue Dec 24 10:33:02 PST 2002

```Markus wrote:

>Example: Suppose that there are 3 parties with 5 candidates each.
>Suppose that a given voter votes as follows.
>
>  Party A (5)
>  Candidate A1 ()
>  Candidate A2 (7)
>  Candidate A3 ()
>  Candidate A4 (4)
>  Candidate A5 ()
>  Party B (7)
>  Candidate B1 (8)
>  Candidate B2 (2)
>  Candidate B3 (1)
>  Candidate B4 ()
>  Candidate B5 ()
>  Party C ()
>  Candidate C1 (3)
>  Candidate C2 ()
>  Candidate C3 (3)
>  Candidate C4 ()
>  Candidate C5 (6)
>
>Then this should be interpreted as follows:
>
>  Candidate A1 (5)
>  Candidate A2 (7)
>  Candidate A3 (5)
>  Candidate A4 (4)
>  Candidate A5 (5)
>  Candidate B1 (8)
>  Candidate B2 (2)
>  Candidate B3 (1)
>  Candidate B4 (7)
>  Candidate B5 (7)
>  Candidate C1 (3)
>  Candidate C2 (9)
>  Candidate C3 (3)
>  Candidate C4 (9)
>  Candidate C5 (6)

OK, understood.  A long time ago, I had made a suggestion for voting mixed
lists of candidates and parties, but I hadn't supported equal rankings.  I
would have interpreted the ranking of party A in rank 5 as the desire to
rank A1 5th, A3 6th, and A5 7th.  I like your way better since it removes
any vestige of predetermined ordering from the party list.

Of course, this approach makes transferring votes a little more tricky.  In
this system, can your active votes be split among more than one
candidate?  To use the above example, if B2 and B3 were already elected,
and the voter's ballot still had strength .7, would the ballot be
transferred to both C1 and C3 with a weight of .35 each?  If C3 were
subsequently eliminated, would the C3 portion then transfer to C1 and give
it the full .7?  This seems reasonable, albeit a bit computationally involved.