@toby-pereira That is true. This would matter most when the election is reasonably competetive and this could make the difference.

In my original email I specified that I thought of this specifically in the context of an electoral system (the one in Hungary), where it matters which how many votes a candidate wins or loses, as wasted and surplus votes are transferred and reused as list votes. In that case, a party or block running a losing candidate has an incentive to minimize the margin instead of getting a more in-group appealing candidate since it actually gives them more seats, and same for safe districts - a larger margin brings in in more surplus votes which may bring in more seats.

@matthewmvp said in Hybridizing SPAV?:

According to my wikipedia education, one of the issues with SPAV compared to PAV is that it is a 'greedy algorithm' that only looks at the most locally optimal solution.
Now SAV considers the whole field at once but doesn't fix under and over votes.

AFAIK Sequential SAV and Sequential PAV are the same procedure, which is actually the trick I use to explain SPAV more intuitively: I describe SAV, then explaining how SPAV fixes the spoiler effect in SAV.

Did you read the SAV Wiki article in the past week or two? I tried explaining this way of thinking about SAV in the article to make it simpler, but might have unintentionally made it more confusing instead of less.

@brozai Bear in mind that this was one of the systems used to choose Allocated Score so getting the same result is not a surprise. Also, SSS performed equivalently from my recollection. Allocated Score was chosen because there was some intuition that it was better than SSS in terms of strategy.