[EM] Droop fails the Markus Schulze Rule

[Markus Schulze]

Dear participants,

I don't agree with Donald that the task of an election method
is to allocate voters to candidates. To my opinion, the task
of an election method is to allocate to a given combination of
opinions of the voters a set of n winners (where n is the number
of seats).

Thus the number of wasted votes cannot be defined as the number
of voters who cannot be allocated to a winning candidate.
The number of wasted votes must rather be defined as the number
of voters in the largest set A with the following property:
Independently on how the voters of this set A vote, the election
result will always be the same.

[I want to add that (in so far as most election methods don't
guarantee that a voter cannot be punished for going to the polls
and voting sincerely) the concept of wasted votes cannot really
be used as a criterion. It is only a heuristic like Blake
Cretney's aim to find the "best guess for the best candidate."
The reason: The concept of wasted votes implicitely presumes that
every voter wants to be counted; but a voter who worsens the
election result (by going to the polls and voting sincerely)
rather wants to be ignored than counted. This is also the reason
why Michael Dummett rejects the concept of wasted votes.]

Markus Schulze