[EM] PR-STV and vote management

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:51 AM 4/20/2007, raphfrk at netscape.net wrote:
> > And, yes, there may be a seat left vacant, where those holding the
> > remaining votes can't agree and compromise on some member.

>The problem is that if there is (almost) always 1 seat left vacant, then
>you are back to the Droop quota.  In an election with 10,000+ voters, I
>cannot see every single one of those votes being accounted for.

They can be if candidates register a default assignment that can be 
revoked, and this assignment is delegable. You might notice that this 
is Delegable Proxy :-)

If a loop is created by default assignments and the loop members all 
disappear, yes, you'd have lost votes. But I would expect that to be 
quire rare.

If it is really true that one seat would almost always be vacant, 
then the solution is actually quite simple: add a seat. If everyone 
agrees, whoopee! -- we have an extra legislator and *total* 
representation. We'd hold a party to celebrate! Is total 
representation worth the cost of an extra legislator?

Damn straight it is!

But, yes, it might not happen.

The effect of allowing the Droop quota is clear: there is less motive 
to compromise, and legislators have voting power somewhat variant 
from what the votes were. There are wasted votes, Droop practically 
guarantees it.