Open and Closed Lists (was ...STV for Candidate...)

[Olli Salmi]

At 05:51 +0200 12.2.2002, DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
>I can understand this only if you vote for parties you don't like. It ought
>to be possible with STV and the Hare quota if you have to indicate all
>possible preferences.
>
>D- The forced transfer of surpluses using STV is quite arbitrary -- related
>to the forced arbitrary transfer of votes using IRV.

Forced? Do you mean the system where you have to indicate all preferences?

>The STV results for the Nov. 2001 election for the Cambridge, Mass (U.S.A.)
>City Council are now available via
>
>http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/~Election/
>
>14 rounds of counting for 9 seats
>
>9.98 percent of the votes were wasted due to the use of the Droop Quota.

That's about what I'd expect, slightly below 10%.

You seem to disapprove of the Droop quota. I don't think we can really
avoid wasted votes. If we suppose that there is only one seat to be filled
and two candidates, nearly 50% of the votes can be wasted if the contenders
are rather even. The only way to avoid that is to require unanimity. The
Hare quota for 1 seat is 100%, unanimity.

This is why the Droop quota is better. You add 1 to the number of seats and
round the result to the next higher number to avoid a 50-50 result. With
more seats to be filled there may always be a group which is not large
enough to be entitled for one seat. Their votes are wasted.

Or have I got it all wrong?

Olli Salmi