[EM] Correction. Big CS fault?

[James Gilmour]

> At 02\12\20 14:16 +0000 Friday, James Gilmour wrote:
>  >Craig Carey wrote (in part):
>  >>
>  >> It might seem that in a 6 candidate election, the paper (ABC) is more
>  >> about A,B,C, than about D,E,F. But it can be expanded out like this:
>  >>
>  >> 1(ABC) = ((ABCDEF) + (ABCDFE) + (ABCEDF) + (ABCEFD) + (ABCFDE) + (ABCFED))/6
>  >>
>  >> So every single paper is a paper that candidates can hold an interest
>  >> for.
>  >
>  >Craig, this my be YOUR interpretation, but I do not think it is valid.
>  >
>
>
> I just used the word "can". Certainly that rule (which I name "P2) is rather
> simply needed.

Craig, I don't understand what you are trying to say.  There is no "rule" in your
original expansion - just an expansion based on your (unjustified) interpretation
of what the ABC voter marked on the ballot paper.


> I can't do much if STV fails that and just about every other
> rule that ought be imposed too (some are sequences of rules). In the message,
> Mr Simmons did not need a method, so rules were not needed too.
>

I do not understand the reference to "STV".  When you use "STV" on this list, I
presume you are drawing some distinction between "STV" and "IRV".  I thought the
discussion above was about an IRV, single-winner election.  (I know all about
"STV" applied to single-winner elections, but the confusion of terminology is not
helpful on this list where what I have for 40 years called the "Alternative Vote"
is known as IRV.)


>  >What an "ABC" voter has told the Returning Officer in a preferential
> vote election
>  >is:
>  >1.  I give my vote to A.
>  >2.  If A cannot be elected, please transfer my vote to B.
>  >3.  If B cannot be elected, please transfer my vote to C.
>  >4.  If none of A, B and C can be elected and the choice is among D, E
> and F, I do
>  >not wish to express any view and am content to leave that decision to
> other voters
>  >who have expressed opinions on the relative merits of D, E and F.
>  >
>  >You may argue that by including all possible combinations of D, E and F and by
>  >giving each equal weight (1/6), you have said the same thing, but I
> do not think
>  >it is the same thing at all.
>
> It does seem like the same thing in my opinion.

Once again you ignore completely a fundamental qualitative difference in what the
voter has actual told the Returning Officer.  Neither you nor I should make
assumptions about what we have not been told.  Once the choice is among D, E and
F, the ABC voter has dropped out and wants to take no more part in the election.
The method of counting and determining the winner must respect that and not
re-apportion that voter's vote in accordance with some rules we have invented for
our convenience.


> The rule does seem a little
> lacking in obviousness but it does appear to be a rule that can't be done
> without.

I won't comment on the "obviousness" or lack of it in your "rule", but if your
methodology does not respect the qualitative information the ABC voter is giving
you, then you must change your methodology.  You cannot simply say "it does appear
to be a rule that can't be done without."  You must not make assumptions about
what voters have not told you, just to satisfy some rule you have invented for
another purpose.

James

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em