<HTML><BODY>
<div> RE: [<span class="correction" id="">EM</span>] Tim Hull's PR method<br>
Warren Smith <span class="correction" id="">wds</span> at math.temple.<span class="correction" id="">edu</span><br>
> > 1. Voters vote for up to n candidates - n being either # of open seats or # of candidates<br>
> > 2. Each voter has one vote equally and evenly divided among the candidates they voted for.<br>
> > 3. After doing the first count, eliminate the candidate with the fewest votes.<br>
> > 4. Recount all ballots, dividing votes equally and evenly among *remaining candidates only*<br>
> > 5. Repeat Steps 3 and 4 until there are only as many candidates remaining as there are open seats.<br>
> > 6. The remaining candidates shall be declared elected.<br>
> ><br>
> > Any comments on this method?<br>
> --<br>
><br>
> <span class="correction" id="">WDS</span>: it seems to me this method is not PR in the sense that voters who vote<br>
> for single candidate risk having their votes wiped out, and this other problem:<br>
><br>
> EXAMPLE:<br>
> there are 10 <span class="correction" id="">Dems</span> & 10 <span class="correction" id="">Repubs</span> running for 10 seats.<br>
> The voters are 51% <span class="correction" id="">Dem</span> and 49% <span class="correction" id="">Repub</span>.<br>
> Each <span class="correction" id="">Repub</span> voter votes for all 10<br>
> <span class="correction" id="">Repubs</span> (who thus initially each get 0.1 vote).<br>
> Each <span class="correction" id="">Dem</span> voter voters 100% for just one <span class="correction" id="">Dem</span> - Bill Clinton. Really<br>
> the <span class="correction" id="">Dem</span> voters feel<br>
> Clinton > all other <span class="correction" id="">Dems</span> > all <span class="correction" id="">Repubs</span>,<br>
> but this voting scheme does not allow them to express that feeling, so they<br>
> give it all to Clinton.<br>
><br>
> Result: 9 <span class="correction" id="">Dems</span> eliminated, then 1 <span class="correction" id="">repub</span> eliminated, then<br>
> the 10 winners are Clinton + 9 <span class="correction" id="">repubs</span>.<br>
><br>
> The problem here is that the <span class="correction" id="">Dem</span> voters are "pickier" than the <span class="correction" id="">Repub</span> voters.<br>
> A lot of PR-design-attempts run onto this kind of reef.<br>
<br>
I think it has the same problems as <span class="correction" id="">PR-STV</span> where surpluses are not transferred. A<br>
voter wastes the excess of his vote if he votes for someone who is elected.<br>
<br>
<next post><br>
<br>
> Well, actually, Hull's method *is* PR in the sense that if voters are assumed to<br>
> vote for candidates of their "color" only, and for all of them -<br>
> then winner-counts end up proportional.<br>
><br>
> That's nice. It's kind of a PR generalization of "approval voting."<br>
<br>
It is similar to <span class="correction" id="">PR-STV</span> with equal rankings, except that only 2 ranks are allowed and<br>
there are no surplus transfers, only eliminations. (So maybe not so similar :) ).<br>
<br>
In PR-STV with equal rankings allowed, is it normal to re-calculate the fraction when<br>
a candidate is eliminated (or elected)?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div> </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_68091653-4b0d-45b7-9a59-6e6f3765575b -->
<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>