[EM] Droop fails the Markus Schulze Rule

[Bart Ingles]

Craig Carey wrote:
[...]
> I have yet to find a method or formula that actually contains a
>  'term' representing voters wishes. The Borda method doesn't have
>  such a term, and some of these STV experts could give an opinion
>  about that method.

The fact that voter "wishes" are not directly measurable is not relevant
when the discussion involves a hypothetical case.  The author of an
example can always stipulate voter intentions, and estimate the effect
on an election outcome.  This is not the same as working backwards from
the result to infer voter intentions.


> You wrote "do you question that a voter rather wants...".
>  Why use the word "wants" ?.
>  How is that idea used twice so that it becomes more than an idle
>  and fruitless definition?.
> The estimation of the quantity of wants not only creates a basis
>  asking for involvement of statisticians, but psychologists too.
> 
> Mr Schulze most definitely did use the word wants, and maybe it
>  had a special meaning that did not include the usual English
>  meaning of the word "want".
> 
> It is simple to replace it: For example, if the set of winners in
>  an election are {B, E, G}, and if a preferential voting paper
>  under consideration is (A B C D E F), then the election outcome
>  satisfies the paper by this amount given by this number:
> 
> (A wins)+(B wins)/2+(C wins)/4+(D wins)/8+(E wins)/16+(F wins)/32
> = 0 + 1/2 + 0/4 + 0/8 + 1/16 + 0/32
> = 9/16.

I hope this was intended as only one of many possible ways of measuring
satisfaction with an outcome.  Why powers of two, and not a linear
function?