>The d'Hondt rule is implicit in both Proportional Approval Voting (PAV) >and Sequential PAV.
I think sequential PAV is very nice and with a small number of votes and candidates it could even be counted manually. But the problem with it is that you cannot order the candidates on your ballot paper. Your vote, evenly divided between the successful candidates, goes to the most popular candidates in your list. You can control your vote only by making the set of your approved candidates small. It's the same with ordinary Approval. You specify a set of candidates and your one vote is counted for the most popular candidate in the set. The other voters make the final decision for you. I thought about modifying non-sequential PAV so that the weights 1, 1/2, 1/3.., would be taken in preferential order. You would add 1/n to the voters satisfaction score if his or her nth candidate was successful. That seems to be equivalent to the Varrentrapp/Burnitz/Hom�n method. If we add 1/n to the satisfaction score only if a voter gets his or her n-1'th choice elected we have the Swedish method, if I counted it right and if my small example was representative. Olli Salmi ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
