Greg Nisbet Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 4:31 AM
My system does not have voters voting for candidates at all. In fact,
candidates needn't even exist (theoretically of course) for my
method to be well-defined. Instead people simply vote for parties, with parties
that can't get any seats
On Aug 13, 2011, at 11:31 PM, Greg Nisbet wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Dave Ketchum da...@clarityconnect.com
wrote:
Glad to see thinking, though we part company on some details.
On Aug 13, 2011, at 5:25 PM, Greg Nisbet wrote:
All current forms of party list proportional
of classical allocation methods that the Preferential Party List
Method could use, but I doubt these would be particularly severe.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110814
On Aug 14, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Greg Nisbet wrote:
My method can be modified fairly trivially to allow parties with a maximum
size, e.g. an independent candidate would be a party with a maximum size of
one, and simply allow surpluses to be transferred. Even the relatively naive
Gregory
Why transfers?
At least, when I said do a CW type search for the strongest remaining
candidate, I thought of this as adequate without transfers. I do
think of quitting if the remainder are too weak:
. Anyway, quit after filling the limit of seats to fill.
. Quit anyway if remainder
On Aug 14, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Why transfers?
At least, when I said do a CW type search for the strongest remaining
candidate, I thought of this as adequate without transfers. I do think of
quitting if the remainder are too weak:
. Anyway, quit after filling the
After reading the ballots into the N*N matrix, look for the strongest
candidate - the CW or what is found in the cycle when there is no CW.
This fills the first seat. Then amend the matrix to exclude this CW
and look in the matrix for whoever would be CW in the remainder. In
each step
