I made some assumptions. 1. 7 candidates getting 100% of the vote. 2. The top candidate gets 1.1*the percent of the vote received by the 2nd place candidate. 3. The third place candidate gets 1.2*4th place's percent of the vote. 4. 4th place gets 1.3*5th place's percent of the vote. 5. 5th place gets 1.4*6th place's percent of the vote. 6. 6th place gets 1.5*7th place's percent of the vote.
After experimenting with low values for 7th place and then choosing 2nd place's percent to make the sum add up to close to 100%, I got a reasonable guesstimate that 3rd place would stand a good chance of winning with only a little more than 7.5% of the vote. The calibrated percents in order of popularity were: 40.8 37.1 7.51 6.3 4.8 3.4 2.3 IMO, this is dynamite. If 3-seat LR Hare for a state-assembly election, or as part of a parliamentary system, were combined with winner-take-all rules that reinforced hierarchy, it'd still make any group with 7.5% of the local vote have a good chance of being the swing-vote that determined which major party would have control of the state-assembly or parliament. And that would be enuf to make both major parties give far more heed to the rights of minorities so there'd be "Stand Your Ground" laws on the books in states that would facilitate unjust rulings like in the Zimmerman trial. dlw
Test of Viability of 3rd candidate with 3 Seat LR Hare.xlsx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
