OK, I think there's a bug in this formula. Can you try max(0,(R/M-D(rN/R))/N)? M is the maximum Range vote (1, 99, 100, whatever); the minimum is 0.
2010/6/6 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[email protected]> > Jameson Quinn wrote: > >> Can you add a range-STV method? This would reweight ballots for elected >> candidate X by: >> >> max(0,(N-D(rN/R))/N) >> >> where N is num voters, D is droop quota, r is ballot's range score for X, >> and R is electorate's range total for X. This should be simple to code, a >> small variant on greedy PAV with a different reweighting formula. >> >> This is a more STV-like method, in that it elects candidates in order of >> some pseudo-"strong to weak", not in a proportional order as does greedy >> PAV. >> > > If N = total number of voters, then (unless there's a bug somewhere) we > get: > > PA_Linear_Range_STV 0.29813 0.00031 > > If N = the number of voters voting according to the ballot being > reweighted, then the result is: > You mean, the number of identical ballots? Or the number of ballots with identical orderings? or what? > > PA_Linear_Range_STV 0.20928 0.01991 > > As a comparison: > > PA_Maj[Cardinal-20] 0.31348 0 > PA_STV 0.11902 0.10007 > PA_DHwL(L-R_offense/1/(wv),_0.925) 0.20924 0.02172 > > The first is Range, and the second is ordinary STV. The third is the > closest ranked ballot method at this level of proportionality. > > If you suspect a bug, I could give examples where "N = size of entire > electorate" gives a disproportional result (according to my program). "N = > number voting this way" seems more well behaved, but if you're interested, I > could also give an example where it differs from STV and/or Birational. >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
