Modify WA Legislative Council STV preset to conform to WAEC's implementation

docs/options.md

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ The preset dropdown allows you to choose from a hardcoded list of preloaded STV
 | Australian Senate STV | Rules from section 273 of the [*Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918*](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00400/Html/Text#_Toc59107700), using the unweighted inclusive Gregory method. | [E2] [E3] [E4] | ✓ |
 | NSW Local Government STV | Rules from Schedule 5 of the [*Local Government (General) Regulation 2021*](https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/2022-12-16/sl-2021-0460#sch.5), using the weighted inclusive Gregory method. | [E2] [E5] | ✓ |
 | Victorian Legislative Council STV | Rules from section 114A of the [*Electoral Act 2002* (Vic)](https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-06/02-23aa064%20authorised.pdf), using the unweighted inclusive Gregory method. | [E2] | ✓ |
-| Western Australia STV | Rules from Schedule 1 of the [*Electoral Act 1907* (WA)](https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_29498.pdf/$FILE/Electoral%20Act%201907%20-%20[17-a0-06].pdf), using the weighted inclusive Gregory method. | [E2] [E3] | |
+| Western Australia STV | Rules from Schedule 1 of the [*Electoral Act 1907* (WA)](https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_29498.pdf/$FILE/Electoral%20Act%201907%20-%20[17-a0-06].pdf), using the weighted inclusive Gregory method. | [E2] [E3] [E5] | |
 | Australian Capital Territory STV | Rules from Schedule 4 of the [*Electoral Act 1992* (ACT)](https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/View/a/1992-71/current/PDF/1992-71.PDF), using the exclusive Gregory method. | | ✓ |
 | Minneapolis STV | Rules from chapter 167 of the [*Minneapolis Code of Ordinances*](https://library.municode.com/mn/minneapolis/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_TIT8.5EL_CH167MUELRUCO), using the weighted inclusive Gregory method. | [E6] | ✓ |
 | Cambridge STV | Rules in force in Cambridge, Massachusetts, using random sample transfers. These rules are derived from the [former chapter 54A of the Massachusetts General Laws](https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/electioncommission/massachusettsgenerallawschapter54a.pdf), but have by regulation been modified to incorporate the procedures set out in Article IX of the former [1938 Charter of the City of Cincinnati](https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001754258). See also [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20081118104049/http://www.fairvote.org/media/1993countmanual.pdf). | | ✓ |
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ Exceptions:
 * [E2] When breaking ties backwards, OpenTally applies a recursive method rather than the method described in the legislation. The OpenTally developers regard the method described in the legislation as a defect. For an independent discussion, see <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3014812.3014837">Conway et al.</a>
 * [E3] A tie between 2 candidates for the final vacancy will be broken backwards then at random, rather than the method described in the legislation.
 * [E4] Bulk exclusion is not performed, as the prescribed rules are more conservative than OpenTally's. See also the section on *Bulk exclusion* for further discussion.
-* [E5] The legislation is drafted such that a consistent interpretation is impossible – see <a href="https://github.com/AndrewConway/ConcreteSTV/blob/main/nsw/NSWLocalCouncilLegislation2021Commentary.md">Conway</a> for a discussion. In practice, the New South Wales Electoral Commission has applied the ‘by parcel’ method of rounding subtransfers, which OpenTally follows.
+* [E5] The legislation is drafted such that a consistent interpretation is impossible – see <a href="https://github.com/AndrewConway/ConcreteSTV/blob/main/nsw/NSWLocalCouncilLegislation2021Commentary.md">[1]</a>, <a href="https://yingtongli.me/blog/2022/07/15/wigm-legislation.html">[2]</a> for a discussion. In practice, the New South Wales and Western Australia Electoral Commissions have applied the ‘by parcel’ method of segmented exclusion and rounding subtransfers, which OpenTally follows.
 * [E6] The ‘mathematically eliminated by the sum of all ranked-choice votes comparison’ is not implemented, and undeclared write-in candidates are not distinguished.
 * [E7] The ‘quarter of a quota’ provision is disregarded when determining whether to defer surplus distributions.
 * [E8] The distribution of a surplus is not deferred if it exactly equals the difference between the 2 trailing continuing candidates.

html/presets.js

@@ -204,11 +204,11 @@ function changePreset() {
 		document.getElementById('txtRoundVotes').value = '0';
 		document.getElementById('chkRoundSFs').checked = false;
 		document.getElementById('chkRoundValues').checked = false;
-		document.getElementById('selSumTransfers').value = 'per_ballot';
+		document.getElementById('selSumTransfers').value = 'by_parcel';
 		document.getElementById('selSurplus').value = 'by_order';
 		document.getElementById('selMethod').value = 'wig';
 		document.getElementById('selPapers').value = 'both';
-		document.getElementById('selExclusion').value = 'by_source';
+		document.getElementById('selExclusion').value = 'parcels_by_order';
 		document.getElementById('selTies').value = 'backwards,random';
 	} else if (document.getElementById('selPreset').value === 'act') {
 		document.getElementById('selQuotaCriterion').value = 'geq';