Most of the info on exhausted ballots was in footnotes, unfortunately:
If all of a voter’s points were assigned to candidates which are now eliminated, we’ll pretend that the voter spread their points out equally across the remaining candidates.
[Footnote:
Why this might make sense, intuitively:
We could treat votes from people whose voted-on candidates have all been eliminated (or whose remaining votes are 0′s) as non-votes (i.e. the fact that they voted doesn’t affect the vote at all at this point), or we could pretend that the 0’s they put were actually minuscule positive point values, distributed evenly on all the non-voted candidates.
Now suppose lots of people assign all their points to a few unpopular candidates which are eliminated before we get to the top three (note that this is a somewhat unlikely scenario). This would mean that our top three winning projects are something that lots of voters didn’t think much about (or thought were less cost-effective than other projects). It seems better to treat the projects as if they’re a bit more similar to a normal base rate of charities and in particular to equalize votes between them a bit.
]
Renormalization: you’ve got it right!
Under-voting: yeah, we’re allowing it.
[Edit: looks like harfe and I answered at basically the same time. :) ]
Most of the info on exhausted ballots was in footnotes, unfortunately:
Renormalization: you’ve got it right!
Under-voting: yeah, we’re allowing it.
[Edit: looks like harfe and I answered at basically the same time. :) ]
Sorry I missed that. I think that’s a sensible way to handle ballot exhaustion.