[EM] language/framing quibble

[James Gilmour]

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.  One of the key differences is the rule for transferring surpluses.  The BC-STV proposal would use the Weighted Inclusive
Gregory Method (WIGM).  (NB The description of WIGM given in the BC Technical Report is not 100% correct, nor is the rest of the
description complete.)  Scotland is the only country, so far, to have used a WIGM version of STV-PR for public elections.  You will
find a simple explanation and a detailed explanation of the Scottish version on the VoteScotland website at:  www.votescotland.com.
Follow the links under "How to use your vote".  A WIGM version of STV-PR will also be used in Western Australia, but they will
credit only the integer values of the votes.


> The only thing I could spot was compulsory meeting the quota 
> in their flowchart, but I assume that was just an error in the pdf.

This must be a mistake because BC-STV did not intend to leave any seats unfilled and you cannot guarantee that enough candidates
will attain the quota unless the quota is diminished, as in Meek STV.  If I remember correctly, 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.

James Gilmour

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