[EM] Re: Meek and Newland-Britton

[James Green-Armytage]

>
>Yes, Newland-Britton definitely elects AB since Newland-Britton does not
>have non-transferrable as a transfer category.

	It doesn't? Huh. I didn't know that.Well, in this example, I think that
it makes more sense the way I did it, so I think that {A C} should win. I
think that it makes sense that the A-truncate voters shouldn't help B so
directly, but maybe there can be more debate on that point...
	However, I'm left with another question... What would happen in Meek if C
and D's votes were more evenly-distributed, so that no one had a surplus
right away... like this for example:
>

61: A
60: A>B
30: C>D
29: D>C

	After round one, if you recalculated the quota based on the amount of
exhausted (fractional) votes, then wouldn't you also recalculate the
retention fraction and the transfer fraction for A? That is, instead of
the retention fraction being 60 / 121, wouldn't it now be 49.752 / 121?
And if so, wouldn't that increase the amount of exhausted votes, which
would lower the quota, which would lower A's retention fraction, which
would increase the amount of exhausted votes, and so on? When would this
end? Does it just end when the quota drops below the amount of votes held
by one of the other candidates? I personally don't know.

my best,
James