----------- Forwarded Letter ----------- From: Salva To: "Donald E Davison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Salva Voting - multi-seat example Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:19:35 +0200 >I suggest that you ask Mr. Salva to give you a complete example of his >proposed method with at least 3 seats. OK, here we go: there is a district with 10 seats. 6 parties are running for them. After counting the first choice of all the cast ballots the results are A 39% B 28% C 16% D 10% E 4% F 3% party A gets 4 seats, party B gets 3 seats, C gets 2, D gets 1 and E and F none. This is a provisional result. Now we take all the ballots that had E and F as a first choice (7%) and look at their second choice. Second choice of those ballots is as follows: A 0% B 50% C 0% D 0% E 25% F 25% so a 50% of a 7% of votes are transferred to party B, thus party B has now 31.5% instead of 28%. The new provisional result may still be A4, B3, C2, D1 and E and F none. Now we take all the ballots that in their second choice voted for E and F (50% of the remaining after the first count, 3.5% of the total number of ballots) and look what's their third choice. the result is A 0% B100% C 0% D 0% E 0% F 0% now the situation is A 39% B 35% C 16% D 10% E 0% F 0% and the allocation of seats is A4, B4, C1, D1, E0 and F0. Now the result is the definitive one, as all ballots are allocated to a party with representation. It might have happened that party D didn't obtain any seat after the third count. Then we take those 10% of ballots and relocate them by their second choice, and E and F would still have a chance to have representation (maybe not in this example, but the point is that no candidate is definetively left out untill the very end). It is necessary for multy-seat districts to allocate seats after each count, to determine which parties obtain representation and which ones don't. What I mean is that a party with 9% of votes could obtain representation depending on the distribution of the rest of votes or a party with 11% could not, so you cannot work only with percentages or votes during the process. Is everything clear now? If you have any doubt just ask. >but I do not understand how it is like STV. ok, I was wrong I supose. I saw the similarity in that you rank candidates and in that all ballots end up in a seat. I supose you are right in that the diferences are more than similarities... > This example will have eleven candidates running in a four member district. > The first count of the ballots is as follows(xx means lower choices): > > Axx Bxx Cxx Dxx Exx Fxx Gxx Hxx Ixx Jxx Kxx > 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 = 770 > > As of now, candidates A-B-C-D are the lead candidates. The second >choices of candidates E to K would receive a vote each and then be >transferred(added) to the count of the first choices. Suppose the following >second choice votes: > > 50 48 45 43 50 41 41 39 37 35 33 = 462 >--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- >130 126 121 117 122 111 109 105 101 97 93 > > Now the leading four candidates are A-B-E-C > The next step is to repeat the routine by giving a vote to the next >available choice of each ballot of candidates D,F,G,H,I,J,K > The next available choice of the ballots of candidate D is the second >choice. > The next available choice of the ballots of candidates F,G,H,I,J,K are >the third choices. > > This routine keeps repeating until there are no more available choices >remaining. YES you have perfectely understood the method, I'm very glad you did because my English is poor and sometimes I'm not sure if I make myself understood > Whichever four candidates are now in the lead, those four are the >elected members from this district. this is not necessarily so. It is true when the candidates are individuals, but if they are parties then all seats can end up in a single candidate or 2-1-1 or 2-2 or 3-1 I would like to note that in a single-winner election the process could be very long because the candidate receiving the highest number of votes could be changing in many counts in a row untill it is reached an stabilization of a candidate receiving many votes. On the other hand the process can be shortened because once a candidate has more than 50% it can not be defeated. It is also important to note that in a single-winner election many ballots, obviously, don't end up with representation, which was my original porpose. Well, indeed, in multy-seat elections it could happen some ballots ending up without representation if they don't have the whole ranking filled up, but that's the voter fault, not the method. Salva
