Ok, a slight restatement, which makes the operation less complex. Also, it eliminates the need for a transition from the standard process to the tie-breaking rule.
Sort conditions by (total support)/(2*number of seats - 1) i.e. Sainte-lague divisors So, if (ABC)>(all others) has a support of 28, then ABC-1 would have a score of 28/(2*1 - 1) = 28 ABC-2 would have a score of 28/(2*2 - 1) = 28/3 = 9.3 ABC-3 would have a score of 28/(2*3 - 1) = 28/5 = 5.6 When 2 conditions have the same score, they are processed together, as a single step. Go through the list and at each step, for each uneliminated result, work out the number of conditions at that step that have been violated. After each step, eliminate all results except for the results that are tied lowest for the number of contradictions so far. At the start, this will likely just eliminate all results, except those which meet all the conditions. Keep going until there is only 1 uneliminated result left. Effectively, each result has a contradiction score C(R, S) = number of contradictions for result R, in steps 1 to S Moving a condition upwards (by voting for it), will decrease (or keep equal) the score for results that are inconsistent with it and have no effect on consistent results. Thus, I think that ensures that it is monotonic. However, the elimination process might lead to non-monotonicity. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
