The method works as follows: For the first election, the candidate elected would be just the plurality winner.
However, the winning candidate would get to keep votes equal to the excess over the 2nd highest candidate. All other candidates would get to keep all of their votes. In subsequent elections, the candidate with the most votes would again win. However, the vote total for each candidate would be the votes cast for the candidate in the election plus any they kept from the previous election. This leads to the long term average number of seats for the candidate matching the candidate's proportion of votes. There would also probably be need to be a rule to handle a candidate who retires/dies so that his excess can be passed to someone else. I think a candidate should not be allowed to pass on excess unless the candidate is retiring to minimise voters ending up voting for someone they didn't really support and to prevent the party machines from controlling excess transfers. This gives the benefits of a random ballot while being deterministic ( I think ? ). The disadvantage is that the averages are over time, and people may prefer to vote for a candidate for the current election rather than support a candidate so they can win in a later election. On the other hand, voters might be happy with a musical chairs like effect, especially if the elections are held often. 3rd party voters would get to see their candidate gaining ground every election and then getting the seat rather than having no hope of electing anyone. If the party wins a seat one third of the time in 100 districts, then it will have a reasonably constant number of seats ranging from 30-36 ish depending on which seats the party holds at a given time. This could also be used for a multi seat district. The cost of being elected would be the number of votes held by the candidate who holds the most votes who didn't get elected. This would allow a single state district easily count the votes. There are no transfers, each counting location just announces how many votes each candidate received. The cost per seat in that election would be the same statewide. The main point is that wasted votes are "recycled" for use in the next election so no votes are wasted in the long run. There is a startup effect which favours the larger parties/candidates, but then the cost to get elected closely matches the turnout and candidates with any level of support will gets seats in proportion to their level of support. If retiring candidates are allowed transfer their excess, then this will only have an effect for the first 3-4 elections after the system is started. Alternatively, It could use STV instead of plurality. Excess votes for a candidate who is elected (scaled accordingly) and all votes for a candidate who is eliminated, that don't specify a valid next choice would passed to the candidate who is ranked first for use in the subsequent election. I am not sure how much of an improvement it would be, but it would allow voters get a compromise candidate "now" rather than their favorite later. An example set of 10 elections with 4 candidates. The turnout is 1000 +/- 50% and the candidates have supports of 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% of the voters respectively. The vote each candidate gets in each election is +/- 50% nominal. The results are: (sorry about formatting, needs to be courier) Election 1 Votes carried forward 0 0 0 0 Votes cast 58 125 182 352 Total 58 125 182 352 Turnout 717 4 wins at cost 182 Election 2 Votes carried forward 58 125 182 170 Votes cast 57 234 479 500 Total 115 359 661 670 Turnout 1270 4 wins at cost 661 Election 3 Votes carried forward 115 359 661 9 Votes cast 120 260 468 539 Total 235 619 1129 548 Turnout 1387 3 wins at cost 619 Election 4 Votes carried forward 235 619 510 548 Votes cast 105 124 267 356 Total 340 743 777 904 Turnout 852 4 wins at cost 777 Election 5 Votes carried forward 340 743 777 127 Votes cast 85 209 309 508 Total 425 952 1086 635 Turnout 1111 3 wins at cost 952 Election 6 Votes carried forward 425 952 134 635 Votes cast 65 114 374 369 Total 490 1066 508 1004 Turnout 922 2 wins at cost 1004 Election 7 Votes carried forward 490 62 508 1004 Votes cast 80 200 311 219 Total 570 262 819 1223 Turnout 810 4 wins at cost 819 Election 8 Votes carried forward 570 262 819 404 Votes cast 89 184 174 435 Total 659 446 993 839 Turnout 882 3 wins at cost 839 Election 9 Votes carried forward 659 446 154 839 Votes cast 92 244 468 508 Total 751 690 622 1347 Turnout 1312 4 wins at cost 751 Election 10 Votes carried forward 751 690 622 596 Votes cast 155 169 322 237 Total 906 859 944 833 Turnout 883 3 wins at cost 906 Summary Percentage of votes: 0.09 0.18 0.33 0.40 Percentage of seats: 0.00 0.10 0.40 0.50 The result slightly favours the more popular candidates. This is because at the start they get "cheap" seats. In the first election, candidate 4 gets the seat and it only costs 182 votes. Near the end, the cost per seat approaches the average turnout of 1000. Running 13 elections and excluding the first 3 gives a more balanced result. The results after all 13 elections are run are shown for a few sets of 13 elections. Summary Percentage of votes: 0.10 0.22 0.33 0.35 Percentage of seats: 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.40 Summary Percentage of votes: 0.09 0.20 0.32 0.39 Percentage of seats: 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 Summary Percentage of votes: 0.09 0.22 0.31 0.38 Percentage of seats: 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.30 Summary Percentage of votes: 0.09 0.23 0.27 0.41 Percentage of seats: 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 Summary Percentage of votes: 0.09 0.18 0.33 0.40 Percentage of seats: 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 Candidate 1 got his fair share for 4 of the 5 sets of elections and -1 for the other Candidate 2 got his fair share for 4 of the 5 sets of elections and +1 for the other Candidate 3 got his fair share for 4 of the 5 sets of elections and +1 for the other Candidate 4 got his fair share for 4 of the 5 sets of elections and -1 for the other The results show that excluding "startup" effects, the seats are fair to all candidates. Running 110 elections and ignoring the first 10 gives even better accuracy: Summary Percentage of votes: 0.10 0.20 0.29 0.41 Percentage of seats: 0.10 0.21 0.30 0.39 Each candidate gets within 1 seat of the correct amount except candidate 4, who gets 2 less than expected. ___________________________________________________ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
