[EM] Quotaless STV

[Warren Smith]

Toby Pereira <tdp201b <at> yahoo.co.uk>:
In the first round, all candidates transfer away as many votes as they
can get away with so that they don't end up in last place. So if there
are n candidates, then having more than 1/(n+1) votes will guarantee
not finishing in last place. Because not every voter will rank every
candidate, some candidates will be "stuck" at much higher than 1/(n+1)
and so others may get away with transferring more away and end up with
less than this and still not finish last. 1/(n+1) isn't a specific
quota. The candidate in last place is then eliminated.

In each subsequent round, the transferred votes are all reset
(de-transferred) and the process starts again. Continue until the
right number of candidates remain for the number of available seats.

Obviously any candidate reaching the Droop Quota will automatically
get elected, but no quota is actually built into the system at any
point. You could also use this system for single winners as an
alternative to the Alternative Vote (Instant Run-off).

--that's an interesting idea.
This may be a dumb question, but is it clear that
when we are "transferring away everything you can"
that order is irrelevant?  Or might it be that the order in which the candidates
activate their "transfer it all away" actions, makes a difference,
i.e. can cause the
results to differ?

-- 
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org  <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
and
math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html