This system has the same problem as limited vote systems. That is, if a
single candidate is very popular, this could disadvantage the party that she
is standing for, as she will accumulate votes at the expense of other
members of the same party. Penalising a party for having a popular
candidate is an anomolous result.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bart Ingles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, 8 October 2000 15:09
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Methods of elimination in quota preferential STV
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Mr. [Ingles] wrote in part-
>
> Voters simply vote for multiple candidates, as they would with approval
> voting, except that each choice gets an equal fraction of the vote (e.g.
> if you vote for five candidates, each gets 1/5 of your vote). You then
> eliminate the weakest candidate and recount, so that the remaining
> candidates get a larger share (if one candidate was eliminated from your
> ballot, the remaining candidates now each get 1/4 of a vote). Continue
> eliminating candidates in the same fashion until the required number
> remain.
> ----
> D- As with Approval Voting with single winners, the A=B=C notion is false
in
> most cases.
What is 'the A=B=C notion'?
> However, it is simple (but probably requiring computerized elections due
to
> the fractions).
>
> A possible minor problem with the end result-
>
> 3 member legislative body
>
> winners and their votes
>
> A B C
>
> N1 N1 N1 (1/3 votes)
> N2 N2 (1/2 votes)
> N3 N3 (1/2 votes)
> N4 N4 (1/2 votes)
> N5 (1 vote)
> N6 (1 vote)
> N7 (1 vote)
>
> Would each winner have a voting power in the legislative body equal to the
> votes he/she receives ???
I'm not sure what is being shown in the above example. Are A, B, and C
the candidates, and N1-7 the voters?
If instead you meant to show a 7-way tie, then it would need to be
resolved in the same way as any other system.
Bart
