(Fwd) STV and truncation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

(Fwd) STV and truncation

Craig Carey-2
Rob L wrote:
[snip]
>do you see my point?  The 10 votes could get a long way from home
>unless we stay true to many voters' intention *not* to have their
>vote transferred.

Yes, I see your point but I'm not sure if it's more important than
allowing votes to be wasted.

Question: Does STV permit a voter to rank two candidates equally?  If
so, how do the votes transfer?  (The reason I ask is because unranked
candidates are essentially ranked *equally* last.  Do they share a
fraction of the ballot if it's "transferred" to the unranked?  I
assume they don't.)

Maybe you're right.  Maybe there should always be an implied NOTB
following the last candidate ranked.  But if severe truncation is a
problem, and if there's a way to *infer* rankings from *similar*
ballots (like saying that {A,B,C} is similar enough to {B,A,C,D} and
{A,B,C,E} so that D and E should share its transfer), perhaps some
of the otherwise wasted votes can be salvaged.

I don't know which violates the 1-person 1-vote principle more.

--Steve