# [EM] A simpler way to count proportional approval voting

Antonio Oneala watermark0n at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 11 03:17:55 PDT 2006

```
Antonio Oneala <watermark0n at yahoo.com> wrote: This method isn't a deritivative of Simmons' PAV method, being more simialar to Sequential Approval voting, but there are changes in the quota that bring the two system far closer together.  Although this new SAV method may not be the exact same thing, it is far simpler to count, and it is actualluy possible to count by hand, while getting rid of most of the potential for tactical voting.  I do this because I think for a very proportional system you need at least 9 different candidates - a 10% quota.  Under Simmons' PAV method elections would happen that would likely require 15 million or more different sets of results for each ballot - barely countable even by computer.

It does this by taking a page from STV and dealing with votes that are in surplus of what is needed to get the candidate elected.

If

V = the current value of the vote
M = the amount of candidates on the ballot currently in the winner's circle

The quota of  normal SAV is:

V = 1/M + 1

Or, using hte webster (St. Lague) quota it would be:

V= 1/M2+1 (I think..)

I'm going to add two new statistics to that quota:

W = The amount of votes within the desired quota (such as the Hare quota of Votes/Seats, or the droops quota of (Votes/Seats +1) +1)
S = The amount of votes in surplus of this quota

The new quota would be:

V = S+(W * (1/M + 1))

Now you are only reducing the votes by the votes that they needed to cast - not the ones in excess.  Therefore, it doesn't have the same reason to withold votes from candidates that are likely to win anyway, and I have yet to create a race where this system and Simmons' system produced different results, yet this is much simpler, possibly more simple than STV.

Alternatively, you could only divide the votes of a random subset of the voters proportionate to the amount under the quota.  And even simpler system, which is  actually a version of the one used in Ireland and Australia, but it obviously has variable results, unlike the new quota which I proposed.

I have just realized that this quota is way too big, so big that in an election no one will meet it... I'm not exactly sure how to put it at the right size.  The current thing I'm thinking of is taking the average amount of votes a voter casts and dividing the quota you choosed to use by that.

However, the basic premise still stands, only reduce the votes that the voters needed to cast to get the guy to win.  I currently need to figure out exactly what they need to cast to get him to win...

---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20060411/06892ac4/attachment-0003.htm>
```