<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 9 Sep 2013, at 7:37 AM, Peter Zbornik <<a href="mailto:pzbornik@gmail.com">pzbornik@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Bright'; font-size: medium; 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-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float: none; ">There was no strategy voting as far as I know.</span><div style="font-family: 'Lucida Bright'; font-size: medium; 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-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">There was an election to the party list (primaries), using essentially Top-down STV (see article: <a href="http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/issue9/p5.htm">http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/issue9/p5.htm</a>), where a less preferred candidate got a higher place on the list, instead of getting a more preferred candidate a lower place on the list, which is a well-known weakness of this method.</div><div style="font-family: 'Lucida Bright'; font-size: medium; 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-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></blockquote></div><br><div>I see. </div><div><br></div><div>If you have an independent means of distinguishing a "more preferred" from a "less preferred" candidate, why not use that directly?</div><div><br></div><div>Offhand, if you're using the mechanism you refer to, I think you're better off using the bottom-up approach, in which you don't have to "protect" already-elected candidates, the source of considerable distortion. It may require more counts, depending on how many candidates you have, but OTOH the earlier counts needn't be carried to completion; only to the point where you have the desired number of candidates left standing.</div><div><br></div></body></html>