[EM] Quotaless STV

[Toby Pereira]

I did wonder that myself and considered mentioning in the post for some reason 
didn't. I'm not 100% sure. If it does make a difference you could easily add in 
some sort of rule to determine how to do it, although the more rules the uglier.

You could do it in stages. At the first stage everyone transfers away any votes 
above the 1/(n+1) threshold where there are n candidates. Any votes that might 
get transferred to a candidate already above this would automatically go to 
third choice, fourth etc. Once this is done, it would be clear that some 
candidates would be stuck at higher than 1/(n+1) votes due to voters not having 
made enough ranked choices. So a new quota would be calculated and the same 
process would happen again until no votes can be transferred. All candidates 
have their votes transferred simultaneously so there would be no ordering to it. 
I know I've mentioned the word "quota" but it's not a specific set quota like 
Droop or Hare and it's always up for renewal if it can be reduced further, so 
I'd still essentially call this quotaless STV.




________________________________
From: Warren Smith <warren.wds at gmail.com>
To: election-methods <election-methods at electorama.com>
Sent: Sat, 9 July, 2011 21:38:15
Subject: [EM] Quotaless STV

--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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110709/771fc7f2/attachment-0004.htm>