[EM] language/framing quibble

[Raph Frank]

On 9/10/08, James Gilmour <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Raph Frank > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:50 AM
>
> > I was looking at their BC-STV proposal.  What is the
>  > difference from normal PR-STV (or is calling it BC-STV just a
>  > 'marketing ploy' :) )?
>
>
> Depends what you mean by "normal".  There are at least six different sets of rules for
> STV-PR now in use for public elections around the world.

Fair enough.  So they are just giving an official name to one of them then?

> they did propose to transfer all
> transferable votes, even when the transfers were not necessary to identify the last
> winner.  Unfortunately, this stupid rule was
>  implemented in the Scottish version of WIGM STV-PR when electronic counts were
>  used, but could be dropped in manual counts.

You mean if enough candidates have exceeded the quota to fill all the
seats, they keep eliminating candidates anyway?

I think we have the same rule in Ireland.  It is felt fairer as you
need to get a certain number of votes to get your deposit back.  By
transfering the last few votes, more candidates can meet the threshold
for getting their money back.