Dear Donald, Thank you for your replies.
>Second reply: > Your example of three groups with 33 1/3% each exposes the falacy of the >Droop quota. In the event an election method should be faced with >perfection on the first count, the method should be able to handle >perfection and report out perfect results. > >Hare Preference Voting can handle perfection and will report the results of >your perfect election as: > 33 1/3% A, 33 1/3% B, 33 1/3% C > >But, Droop Preference Voting cannot handle perfection. Its math will >reduce each 33 1/3% down to 25% +1. The public should not like results of >25 A, 25 B, 25 C, and 25% excluded after they have voted a perfect: 33 >1/3% A, 33 1/3% B, 33 1/3% C. I can see nothing that could be excluded. >In a real Droop election the officials most likely will merely declare >A-B-C as the winners without doing the math of Droop. In this way they can >hide the shame of the defective Droop from the public. It's unnecessary to do the math because A, B and C reach the quota. You can declare the result and have a coffee or whatever. What do you propose to do if you use the Hare quota and there are four rather equal candidates vying for three seats: 25.1% A, 25.1% B, 25.1% C , 24.7% D? Olli Salmi ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
