[fvc-wat-disc] Discussion Night, 29 February at Egg Roll King

[Paul Schellenberg]

Hi Jenn,
	I have responded to your concerns in your email below.

On Feb 25, 2016, at 8:19 PM, Jennifer Ross <2jennross at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Paul.  I get lost in the math.  Are you saying STV except skip the part where we move surplus votes from winning candidates? 
Yes and No. Instead of just transferring the surplus votes of a winning candidate, transfer ALL the votes cast for a winning candidate.
> Because I can get behind that, as long as it works.  I shall trust you've done something in the math that makes it work :) 
Yes. This process elects precisely the desired number of candidates.
> Further to that, are you saying the surplus votes that elected a candidate, are therefore exhausted? 
No, precisely the opposite. All votes cast for as winning candidate or a rejected candidate remain active at every round until they become exhausted. This version of STV uses as many of the voter’s choices as possible. Some ballots could be used to elect 3 or 4 or more candidates.
> Because that has always struck me as fair, although I understood that it leaves remaining and still eligible candidates with too few votes to reach the threshold.  And that doesn't strike me as fair so I was willing to go with the percentage of surplus transfer kind of thing.  I definitely think it is unfair to count the last ballots (after threshold has been reached) for the next choice on it, because that strikes me as getting two votes.
This version of STV deals with ballots cast for winning candidates in the same way that it deals with ballots for rejected candidates. This is the main idea behind this version of STV.

THE BIG QUESTIONS:
Is this version of STV a proportional electoral system?
If so, to what is it proportional? (So many of the voters’ choices are being exercised, it may not be possible to answer this question.)
> 
> But I very much like STV.
> 
> Jenn
> 
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Paul Schellenberg <pjschell at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>         I oppose STV because of the role of surplus votes. Though there are different ways to deal the surplus votes, all of them appear to be flawed, as far as I can see.
> 
> Here is a way to implement STV that eliminates surplus votes.
> 
> A Variation on STV
> ===============
> 
> C - the number of candidates to be elected in the riding
> B - total number of valid ballots
> election threshold - B/(C+1) + 1
> 
> INITIAL ITERATION:
> Use voters' first choices to determine the candidates who meet the “election threshold” and are elected.
> If C candidates are elected, the election is complete.
> If no candidate has been elected, the candidate with the smallest number of votes is rejected. (This step is essential.)
> 
> GENERAL ITERATION:
> Definition: We say a ballot is EXHAUSTED if every ranked candidate on the ballot has been rejected or has been elected.
> Let B* = B - (the number of exhausted ballots)
> Let C* =  C - (the number of elected candidates)
> The new election threshold is B*/(C*+1) + 1
> Definition: A candidate is said to be ELIGIBLE if he or she has not yet been elected or rejected.
> EVERY non-exhausted ballot is assigned to the eligible candidate having the highest ranking.
> Count the ballots for each eligible candidate.
> Any candidate who meets the new election threshold B*/(C*+1) + 1 is declared elected.
> If C candidates are elected, the election is complete.
> If no candidate is elected in this iteration, the candidate with the smallest number of votes is rejected. (This step is essential.)
> Iterate.
> 
> (Note that, in each iteration, every ballot that is not exhausted is counted.)
> 
> Paul Schellenberg
> 
> On Feb 24, 2016, at 5:57 PM, Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com> wrote:
> 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hi Donald: Yes, please bring your sample ballots.
> >
> > I've put the ballots from our mock election last Discussion Night at
> > http://www.fairvotewrc.ca/resources/election-simulation/  I can add
> > your sample ballots if you send me the files.
> >
> > I didn't do a good job of counting the STV ballots from our mock
> > election last time, so I want to count them again, this time following
> > a recipe, or several different recipes, and seeing the difference.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_single_transferable_votes
> >
> > For those people not interested in the mechanics of counting ballots
> > there's lots of other stuff to discuss, such as the apparent support
> > for anything-but-FPTP from our Minister of Democratic Institutions:
> >
> > http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/monsef-electoral-reform-changes-referendum-1.3428593
> >
> > Or the renewed enthusiasm for electoral reform in Prince Edward Island:
> >
> > http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/voting-reform-elections-meetings-1.3455222
> >
> > See you all next Monday!
> >
> > - --Bob.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No other Western democratic country concentrates as much political power in the hands of one person as Canada does with her Prime Minister.
> _______________________________________________
> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20160226/67629260/attachment-0002.htm>