Surplus Handling: Difference between revisions
Remove unsourced PRSA quote (can't find it anywhere on their website)
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(Remove unsourced PRSA quote (can't find it anywhere on their website)) |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
In a sequential [[Multi-Member System]] which
== Surplus allocation ==
In allocation
===Random subset===
Line 11:
===Cincinnati ===
Reallocation ballots are drawn at random from all of the candidate's votes. This method is more likely than Hare to be representative, and less likely to suffer from exhausted ballots. The starting point for counting is arbitrary. Under a recount, the same sample and starting point is used in the recount (i.e., the recount must only be to check for mistakes in the original count, and not a second selection of votes).
Hare and Cincinnati have the same effect for first-count winners, since all the winners' votes are in the "last batch received" from which the Hare surplus is drawn.
Line 21:
The UK's [[W: Electoral Reform Society | Electoral Reform Society]] recommends essentially this method.<ref>[http://www.cix.co.uk/~rosenstiel/stvrules/ Single Transferable Vote Rules] UK Electoral Reform Society</ref> Every preference continues to count until the choices on that ballot have been exhausted or the election is complete. Its main disadvantage is that given large numbers of votes, candidates and/or seats, counting is administratively burdensome for a manual count due to the number of interactions. This is not the case with the use of computerised distribution of preference votes.
===Hare-Clark ===
Line 56 ⟶ 52:
== Fractional Surplus Handling ==
In [[Cardinal voting systems]] the problem of surplus handing is simplified because the vote aggregation is arithmetic. This means that the surplus voters do not need to be allocated to other candidates. Instead, they can have their ballot weight reduced proportionally to the surplus and the tabulation process can continue unaffected. This method is better than allocation because it is completely deterministic and unbiased. This down-weighting of ballots can be applied to all ballots or to a subset depending on the desired effects and the tabulation system.
== References ==
|