Also, there is an example given in the pdf. 42: C>B 39: A>B 10: B>A 4: B 5: B>C
(incidentally, B is the condorcet winner) Anyway, the argument is based on the assumption that each rank should be given an equal weight, i.e. everyone's first choice should be given a weight and everyone's second choice should be given a weight. This is how Borda counting works, with set values given for each rank. However, STV is based on moving ballots between piles. The ballot always has a value of one and it applies that value to the pile that it is part of. In round one, the ballots are divided into 'piles' based on the first choice 'A' pile -> 39 ballots 39: A>B 'B' pile -> 19 ballots 10: B>A 4: B 5: B>C 'C' pile -> 42 ballots 42: C>B B is eliminated, and in round 2, there are only two piles 'A' pile -> 49 ballots 39: A>B 10: B>A 'B' pile -> 4 votes remain/exhausted 4: B Note: B now only gets 4 votes, as the other ballots have been transferred away. 'C' pile -> 47 ballots 42: C>B 5: B>C C is eliminated and A wins. The name single transferable vote is pretty descriptive. Under the system ballots are 'transferred' between the piles for each candidate based on the ordering given on the ballot. In PR-STV, ballots are can also be divided into parts such that the sum of the weights of all the parts adds to one vote and again they are transferred according to the ordering given on the ballot. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
