🚀 go-pugleaf

HJ Leek wrote:
> 
> Cpl Carrot wrote:
> >
> > Jenny Radcliffe wrote:
> > >
> > > Cpl Carrot <D.J.Edmunds@durham.ac.uk> wrote
> > > > Jenny Radcliffe wrote:
> > > > > Cpl Carrot <D.J.Edmunds@durham.ac.uk> wrote
> > > > > > Jenny Radcliffe wrote:
> > > > > > > OK, I can't count anymore ... I've had 27 ...
> > > > > > Not a good sign considering you were supposed to be COUNTING
> > > > > votes...
> > > > > I'd counted so much I'd run out of countability ...
> > > > At this point I would normally recomend a recount but considering the
> > > > level of hostility I am likely to receive by suggesting that particular
> > > > course of action... I won't...
> > >
> > > To be fair, one of the reasons we took so long was that every single figure
> > > was checked over and over again.
> > > I am 100% certain that the thing was correct to the 2dp we worked to!
> >
> > How do you get 2dp from votes? Surely they are all integer numbers?
> > Maybe you mean percent...
> 
> On redistributions votes gain a different value, according to the number
> of the total votes the candidate has gained above quota.  The number
> above quota is divided by the total vote to that candidate, giving a
> value to the form of 0.XY to the votes originally for said candidate
> when redistributed.  So after n redistributions you can have votes with
> ickle values, depending on how they've been passed along.  I know what I
> mean, even if that doesn't make sense.  Anyway, it's one of the delights
> of STV, and ensures that it is 'fair'.

I forgot to add "and time consuming"....

HJ