<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Aug 14, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Greg Nisbet wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: 'Lucida Bright'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div>My method can be modified fairly trivially to allow parties with a maximum size, e.g. an independent candidate would be a party with a maximum size of one, and simply allow surpluses to be transferred. Even the relatively naive Gregory transfer method might work well, I'm not sure how to adapt Meek or a more complicated transfer rule to this method or if the benefits are worth the cost. Allowing transfers might place some kind of restriction on what sorts of classical allocation methods that the Preferential Party List Method could use, but I doubt these would be particularly severe. </div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></blockquote></div><br><div>I briefly described a hybrid list-STV mechanism a few months ago: <a href="http://prfound.org/2010/12/list-stv-pr/">http://prfound.org/2010/12/list-stv-pr/</a></div><div><br></div><div>A useful feature (it seems to me) is that lists are not exclusive; that is, a candidate can appear on multiple lists.</div></body></html>