text: # [EM] 01/17/03 - No Problem, Olli:
  
  Donald Davison donald at mich.com
  Thu Jan 16 23:08:55 PST 2003
  
  ```01/17/03 - No Problem, Olli:
  
  Greetings Olli and list members,
  
  Olli, you wrote: "I can see nothing that could be excluded."
  
  Donald here:  Then I shall explain for you that which `could be excluded'.
  In your example of three seats and three candidates with one-third each,
  that which is excluded are the votes between the Droop quota and the
  one-third, so called surplus held by each of the three candidates.  The
  Droop method demands that surplus votes be transferred, but none of the
  three are able to accept any votes because they are already over the limit
  of the Droop quota.  We cannot say the votes become exhausted because the
  voters may have made enough lower choices.  The problem is that there is
  not enough room in the quotas of the three candidates to accept additional
  votes, therefore the votes are said to be excluded.
  
  Olli: "It's unnecessary to do the math because A, B and C reach the quota.
  You can declare the result and have a coffee or whatever."
  
  Donald:  It is necessary to do the math because, like I've said to James,
  `The job is not over until the paperwork is done.'  Doing the math is
  normal for every election method, so it should also be normal for the Droop
  method of STV.  Besides, the final math will tell us how representative
  these candidates will end up being.  They started at one-third each,
  perfect representation, but the Droop method reduced them down to only
  one-quarter each, something wrong about that Droop guy.
  
  Olli: "What do you propose to do if you use the Hare quota and there are
  four rather equal candidates vying for three seats: 25.1% A,  25.!% B,
  25.1% C,  24.7% D.[?]
  
  Donald:  No problem!  In your example, candidate D is the lowest, so I
  would eliminate candidate D and transfer his votes.  Depending on the lower
  choices we could end up with the following results:  33% A   32% B  31% C
  which would be very good results, very representative of the public, the
  Droop method would never be able to have results as good as that.
  
  ----
explanation: The document is an email exchange between Donald Davison and Olli regarding the Droop quota method in the context of Single Transferable Vote (STV) systems. The discussion revolves around the mathematical and practical aspects of the Droop quota and how it affects the representation of candidates. The text contains multiple questions and answers related to the topic.
distilabel_metadata.content: Evaluate the user given text extract and determine if it contains a math question and optionally and answer to this question.
  
  Output rules:
  
  1. Briefly describe the document and mention if it contains a question or a question and answer.
  2. Finalize the output with: Label: no-question,question,question-and-answer,multiple-question,multiple-question-and-answer
distilabel_metadata.role: system
distilabel_metadata.content: # [EM] 01/17/03 - No Problem, Olli:
  
  Donald Davison donald at mich.com
  Thu Jan 16 23:08:55 PST 2003
  
  ```01/17/03 - No Problem, Olli:
  
  Greetings Olli and list members,
  
  Olli, you wrote: "I can see nothing that could be excluded."
  
  Donald here:  Then I shall explain for you that which `could be excluded'.
  In your example of three seats and three candidates with one-third each,
  that which is excluded are the votes between the Droop quota and the
  one-third, so called surplus held by each of the three candidates.  The
  Droop method demands that surplus votes be transferred, but none of the
  three are able to accept any votes because they are already over the limit
  of the Droop quota.  We cannot say the votes become exhausted because the
  voters may have made enough lower choices.  The problem is that there is
  not enough room in the quotas of the three candidates to accept additional
  votes, therefore the votes are said to be excluded.
  
  Olli: "It's unnecessary to do the math because A, B and C reach the quota.
  You can declare the result and have a coffee or whatever."
  
  Donald:  It is necessary to do the math because, like I've said to James,
  `The job is not over until the paperwork is done.'  Doing the math is
  normal for every election method, so it should also be normal for the Droop
  method of STV.  Besides, the final math will tell us how representative
  these candidates will end up being.  They started at one-third each,
  perfect representation, but the Droop method reduced them down to only
  one-quarter each, something wrong about that Droop guy.
  
  Olli: "What do you propose to do if you use the Hare quota and there are
  four rather equal candidates vying for three seats: 25.1% A,  25.!% B,
  25.1% C,  24.7% D.[?]
  
  Donald:  No problem!  In your example, candidate D is the lowest, so I
  would eliminate candidate D and transfer his votes.  Depending on the lower
  choices we could end up with the following results:  33% A   32% B  31% C
  which would be very good results, very representative of the public, the
  Droop method would never be able to have results as good as that.
  
  ----
distilabel_metadata.role: user
distilabel_metadata.raw_output_q_a_detector_0: The document is an email exchange between Donald Davison and Olli regarding the Droop quota method in the context of Single Transferable Vote (STV) systems. The discussion revolves around the mathematical and practical aspects of the Droop quota and how it affects the representation of candidates. The text contains multiple questions and answers related to the topic.
  
  Label: multiple-question-and-answer