At 05:51 +0200 12.2.2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I can understand this only if you vote for parties you don't like. It ought >to be possible with STV and the Hare quota if you have to indicate all >possible preferences. > >D- The forced transfer of surpluses using STV is quite arbitrary -- related >to the forced arbitrary transfer of votes using IRV.
Forced? Do you mean the system where you have to indicate all preferences? >The STV results for the Nov. 2001 election for the Cambridge, Mass (U.S.A.) >City Council are now available via > >http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/~Election/ > >14 rounds of counting for 9 seats > >9.98 percent of the votes were wasted due to the use of the Droop Quota. That's about what I'd expect, slightly below 10%. You seem to disapprove of the Droop quota. I don't think we can really avoid wasted votes. If we suppose that there is only one seat to be filled and two candidates, nearly 50% of the votes can be wasted if the contenders are rather even. The only way to avoid that is to require unanimity. The Hare quota for 1 seat is 100%, unanimity. This is why the Droop quota is better. You add 1 to the number of seats and round the result to the next higher number to avoid a 50-50 result. With more seats to be filled there may always be a group which is not large enough to be entitled for one seat. Their votes are wasted. Or have I got it all wrong? Olli Salmi