Blake wrote: >I'm a little confused by what you mean by that. Presumably, a ballot >is exhausted/wasted when it normally would be transferred, but it >lists no more candidates. So, if everyone listed all the candidates >in order, there would be no exhausted votes, no matter what the >quota. I don't know if the quota has any effect, but isn't the >primary cause of wasted votes incomplete ballots? I would consider a vote is to be 'wasted' if it is neither used to make up a quota for an elected candidate, nor used to elect a candidate who does not get a quota. Where there is n candidates left uneliminated, none of whom have quotas, and there is n-1 seats left to be filled, then the votes for the candidate who is eliminated are wasted. This is because, even if one holds that the votes are redistributed from this candidate, those votes do not assist to elect any candidate over any other candidate. They are irrelevant and hence are 'wasted'. If everyone lists all the candidates, there will still be some wasted votes. However, it is generally not a good idea to require voters to list all candidates. The rule (that exists in all optional preferential quota STV systems in practice) that when there are n candidates left and n seats to fill, all those candidates are declared elected, is the weakest part of this system. I had previously proposed that votes are to be redistributed and candidates eliminated until only one candidate remains (where no candidates can get a quota). That candidate is declared elected. Then, if there are any seats left to fill, all votes are re-activated, and transferred from already elected candidates at full transfer value of 1. This would decrease the number of 'wasted' votes in an optional-preferential quota STV, as wasted votes get another chance to elect a candidate.
