Jobst Heitzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I would instead find the following variant natural: > >Start with "excess" 0 for all voters. In each election, add to each >voter's excess the fraction of the vote she received in that election >(that is, a number between 0 and 1) to get the new excess. Elect the >candidate whose so-computed excess is largest and subtract 1 from this >voter's excess. > >In this way, a candidate's "excess" is exactly the number of times that >candidate should have won by the proportionality requirement, minus the >number of times the candidate did actually win. Since it is easy to see >that these excesses sum up to 0 and are always between -1 and the number >of candidates, it follows directly that in the long run the quotient >between wins deserved and wins received converges exactly to 1 for each >candidate, with the order of convergence being 1/#elections. And: at no >time is there a candidate who won more than one time more often than she >deserved! > >So, what was the motivation for your version? > >Yours, Jobst
The two reasons were that I didn't want voter turnout for the election that you vote on to matter as much and that I didn't want candidates to be able to end up with negative excess. If each candidate is given a number from 0 to 1 depending on voter turnout, then a voter's vote in a high turnout election is worth more than in a low turnout election. This is probably not really a big issue. However, I like the idea of putting in a system that encourages candidates to get people to vote. What about setting the threshold to the average turnout over the last 10 elections. This gives a reasonably stable threshold but still allows votes counted in a high turnout election to count for just as much as a low turnout election. It does have the problem of negative excesses though. Also, I am not so sure I like the idea of negative excesses. I suggested in my first post that on resignation or death a candidate would be allowed to pass his excess on to another person. There would be no equivalent for excess debt. I guess it could be good for representative churn. However, if there were 2 similar candidates, and one had a negative excess, there would be little point in voting for the one with excess debt as the other candidate would be worth more. Also, a strategy to maximise seats would be to run a different candidate each time so that you win but end up in debt. This would push up that viewpoints number of seats above average. __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
