<HTML><BODY>
<div>One strategic vulnerability of <span class="correction" id="">PR-STV</span>
is vote management. This is where a party tries to ensure that
most of their first choice votes are split equally between all their
candidates in the hope that the quota will drop.<br>
<br>
For example, assume a 4 <span class="correction" id="">seater</span><br>
<br>
37<span class="correction" id="">A1</span>><span class="correction" id="">A2</span><br>
27 B<br>
18 <span class="correction" id="">C1</span>><span class="correction" id="">C2</span> <br>
18 C2>C1<br>
</div>
<div> <br>
The quota is (100)/5 = 20 (actually slightly larger than 20)<br>
<br>
Round 1:<br>
<span class="correction" id="">A1</span>: 37<br>
<span class="correction" id="">A2</span>: 0<br>
B: 27<br>
<span class="correction" id="">C1</span>: 18<br>
<span class="correction" id="">C2</span>: 18<br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id="">A1</span> elected and votes transferred<br>
<br>
Round 2:<br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id="">A1</span>: 20*<br>
<span class="correction" id="">A2</span>: 17 (all transfers from <span class="correction" id="">A1</span>)<br>
B: 27<br>
<span class="correction" id="">C1</span>: 18<br>
<span class="correction" id="">C2</span>: 18<br>
<br>
B elected and 7 votes exhausted<br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id="">A1</span>: 20*<br>
<span class="correction" id="">A2</span>: 17<br>
B: 20*<br>
<span class="correction" id="">C1</span>: 18<br>
<span class="correction" id="">C2</span>: 18<br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id="">A2</span> is lowest, so is eliminated<br>
<br>
Only 4 candidates left, so winners are:<br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id="">A1</span>, B, <span class="correction" id="">C1</span>, <span class="correction" id="">C2</span><br>
<br>
However, the voters who votes <span class="correction" id="">A1</span>><span class="correction" id="">A2</span> had voted<br>
<br>
18.5: <span class="correction" id="">A1</span>><span class="correction" id="">A2</span><br>
18.5: <span class="correction" id="">A2</span>><span class="correction" id="">A1</span><br>
<br>
then <span class="correction" id="">C1</span> or <span class="correction" id="">C2</span> would have been eliminated.<br>
<br>
This means that coordination of voting can give a boost to some
factions. The problem with this is the same as plurality, if
voters' power is <span class="correction" id="">dependent</span> on having to vote the party 'ticket', then it gives less choice to the voters. <br>
<br>
Some possible solutions:<br>
<br>
<b>Recalculate the quota each time transfers happen.</b><br>
<br>
This would mean that the surplus of elected candidates would increase and thus they would be entitled to transfer more votes.<br>
<br>
In the above example, the total votes 'in play' at the end of round 2 is <br>
20+17+20+18+18 = 93<br>
The quota would thus drop to 18.6, rounded to 19.<br>
<br>
This would allow <span class="correction" id="">A1</span> (and B) to transfer 1 more vote (actually 1.4 more votes). This would push <span class="correction" id="">A2</span> ahead of <span class="correction" id="">C1</span> and <span class="correction" id="">C2</span>
and thus one of them would be eliminated. One slight issue is
that this would result in B having even more wasted votes, which would
reduce the quota again. This should converge, but may add a
number of additional counts. <br>
<br>
Another option would be to recalculate the quota and re-run the entire
election. There are more significant convergence issues though
and it means that the votes need to be counted multiple times.<br>
<br>
<b>Asset/<span class="correction" id="">PR-STV</span> hybrid</b><br>
<br>
Any exhausted votes would be transferable by the candidate who is first choice on the ballot that has become exhausted.<br>
<br>
This would allow B to transfer his 7 vote surplus to either <span class="correction" id="">A2</span> or one of the C candidates. This is probably even fairer than recalculating the quota, as B is most likely to have his <span class="correction" id="">voter's</span> interests at heart.<br>
<br>
Asset on its own is pretty good, but judging from the number of votes that tend to
transfer <span class="correction" id="">across</span> party lines under <span class="correction" id="">PR-STV</span>, voters are likely to prefer to have
control over transfers.<br>
<br>
--------------<br>
<br>
Another issue is where voters vote for candidates that they know aren't
going to win as their first choice. This means that they don't
waste any of their vote getting their first choice elected and can vote
a full vote for their 2nd choice.<br>
<br>
I am not sure how big an issue that is though as presumably, the people
who have the same top choice as you are likely to have reasonably close
2nd choices as well.<br>
<br>
Meek solves this, but a <span class="correction" id="">simplier</span> solution would be to require that the entire election is re-run whenever a candidate is eliminated.<br>
<br>
This means that voting for a no-hoper is a waste of time as ultimately,
he will be eliminated and your vote will count for your true first
choice anyway.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="clear: both;"><span class="correction" id="">Raphfrk</span><br>
--------------------<br>
Interesting site<br>
"what if anyone could modify the laws"<br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id="">www</span>.<span class="correction" id="">wikocracy</span>.<span class="correction" id="">com</span></div>
<div> </div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_0_a3a0da5a-c1c5-4472-9e4f-fb58836edb0c -->
<div class="AOLPromoFooter">
<hr style="margin-top:10px;" />
<a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1081283466x1074645346/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaim%2Ecom%2Ffun%2Fmail%2F" target="_blank"><b>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail</b></a> -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.<br />
</div>
</BODY></HTML>