Toby Pereira <tdp201b <at> yahoo.co.uk>: In the first round, all candidates transfer away as many votes as they can get away with so that they don't end up in last place. So if there are n candidates, then having more than 1/(n+1) votes will guarantee not finishing in last place. Because not every voter will rank every candidate, some candidates will be "stuck" at much higher than 1/(n+1) and so others may get away with transferring more away and end up with less than this and still not finish last. 1/(n+1) isn't a specific quota. The candidate in last place is then eliminated.
In each subsequent round, the transferred votes are all reset (de-transferred) and the process starts again. Continue until the right number of candidates remain for the number of available seats. Obviously any candidate reaching the Droop Quota will automatically get elected, but no quota is actually built into the system at any point. You could also use this system for single winners as an alternative to the Alternative Vote (Instant Run-off). --that's an interesting idea. This may be a dumb question, but is it clear that when we are "transferring away everything you can" that order is irrelevant? Or might it be that the order in which the candidates activate their "transfer it all away" actions, makes a difference, i.e. can cause the results to differ? -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step) and math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
