offical name of this voting method[edit | edit source]
Can we change this to Sequential Monroe Voting (since that's it's official name?). On any electoral reform forum you can call SMV sequential Monroe or STV single transferable and people will know what you mean but it would be weird for the electowiki page on single transferable vote to just be called single transferable.
Quota and Reweighting methodology[edit | edit source]
Is it necessary to use Hare quota? With Droop quota, the method can satisfy the Droop proportionality criterion. Droop vs. Hare should be an option depending on what type of representation you are looking for.
- Of course you can do this but why is Droop proportionality criterion better? --Dr. Edmonds (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Is it necessary to zero out ballots that rate a seat winner above the quota-threshold rating? What if you reweight all ballots rating the winner at and above the quota-threshold rating by the same factor, sufficient to remove one quota of ballots? Does that cause the method to lose IIA and monotonicity? (--Araucaria (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC))
- I am not sure what you mean. Either you are talking about doing fractional surplus handling which it does. Or you are proposing a system similar to Sequentially Spent Score. I would suggest you follow up on the forum https://forum.electionscience.org/ since the inventor (Parker) is quite active there. --Dr. Edmonds (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)