[EM] language/framing quibble

[James Gilmour]

Raph Frank > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:49 AM
> > 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?

I would not want to call it an "official" name.  The core principle of BC-STV already has a name (WIGM) in the academic literature
(Farrell & McAllister) and in literature associated with the implementation in Scotland.  However, there are lots more rules you
also have to consider for any implementation of STV-PR.  Scotland and Western Australia both have WIGM enshrined in their
legislation, but many of the other STV rules in these two implementations are different.  I think it would be OK to use the name
"BC-STV" for the complete set of election rules that will be used for STV-PR in British Columbia, but they have yet to decide on
many of those rules (there is nothing about them in the BC CAER Tech Report - it far from a complete specification)


> > 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?

Yes.  It also arises:	
1.  when you have a candidate who must take the last seat and you have a runner-up who cannot overtake that candidate; the
runner-up's votes are (unnecessarily) transferred.
2. when you have filled the last seat and one candidate still has a surplus; that surplus is (unnecessarily) transferred.

These transfers are unnecessary to identify the winners who should be elected, and they are undesirable because this procedure can
deal differently with a ballot paper with all preferences marked compared with a ballot paper with the last preference blank.  These
two ballot papers should be treated identically, i.e. my vote should NEVER be transferred to the last preference where I have
numbered all possible preferences.


> 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 transferring the last few votes, more 
> candidates can meet the threshold for getting their money back.

I know this is done in STV-PR counts in Ireland, but has nothing to do with the election per se, i.e. identification of the winners.
It is solely to see what percentage of the votes each candidate got (including all possible transfers) as that determines whether or
not the candidate will loose the deposit or have it refunded.  So it is really about money, not the operation of STV-PR.

James



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.19/1663 - Release Date: 09/09/2008 19:04