devfort/turnout-election-schemes

turnout-election-schemes's Issues

Under STV tied candidates are elected in order they were given

All candidates who have met or exceeded the quota are provisionally elected at the same time. The candidates are elected in descending order of vote value, so that the candidate with the highest surplus in a round is shown as elected first. If two candidates who have met the quota have the same number of votes they will be added to the elected in the order they were passed to the scheme in, rather than in a random order.

The random generator use in _candidate_with_highest_surplus should instead be in _provisionally_elect_candidates so that ties are broken at the time the candidate is elected instead of when their surplus is distributed.

Make quota explicit

In documentation or tests or both, we should make it clear that we are using the Droop quota, and what it is.

Let's have us some CI

Probably Travis?

Tests should be documentation

We've done a bit of that, but there are some things we haven't done. The comments below refer to STV particularly.

• Would be good if you could read through them for documentation
• If a candidate drops out midway, the results should be the same as if they never existed. We should have a test for that.
• According to the paper, the tally of exhausted votes is recorded. We need a test to make that explicit and/or a test example where the quota changes.

STV needs some more defensive programming

I have a note that we don't adequately deal with calling things out of order. Is this still an issue?

We need a README

It should say what this is, a brief guide on how to use it, and point to github & the open mailing list for people to contribute. (I think it's okay at this stage to assume that people can use a disposable or protected email address to get in touch if they have reason to be private about their identity, and that is sufficient for our purposes in this codebase.)