# [EM] Some unusual Condorcet STV methods

Richard Lung voting at ukscientists.com
Wed Sep 16 10:46:33 PDT 2015

```On 15/09/2015 21:34, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> On 09/15/2015 07:48 PM, Richard Lung wrote:
>> To all from one new to this group,
>>
>> I have been studying election methods for a long time,
>> including combining Condorcet method with STV.
>> As I believe I mentioned in my first e-mail, I have invented Binomial STV,
>> which does not disqualify any candidate before the (averaged) count is
>> complete.
> Could you describe your method here? I'd be interested in knowing how it
> works, and I imagine the other members of the list would as well.
>

I have evolved a transferable voting method, descriptively called
(preference abstentions-inclusive keep-value averaged) Binomial STV.

Traditional single transferable vote is uninomial: it is just a
preference vote count. Binomial STV also conducts a reverse preference
count. The latter is an exclusion count to do away with the critique,
"premature exclusion" of a trailing candidate, when the transferable
surplus votes happen to run out.

The unfilled preferences or abstentions must also be counted, so that
the relative importance of preference election count and unpreference
exclusion count is conserved.
With Binomial STV, if you returned a blank ballot paper, that would be
equivalent to None Of The Above. But partly unfilled orders of
preference partly count also towards the quota for an unfilled seat.

A preference election and an unpreference exlusion is a first order
Binomial STV count. The result is obtained by inverting the  exclusion
keep values and averaging them with the election keep values (using the
geometric mean).
Keep values were introduced by the computer-counted Meek method STV.
However, I extended their use from candidates who are elected with a
surplus of votes, to candidates still in deficit of an elective quota.
This extra information is useful in Binomial STV, because winners are
those who do best on average.

Binomial STV is a preferential data mining system,which can be taken
to indefinitely higher orders of election and exclusion counts.
If preference, p, plus unpreference, u, count is given in binomial
theorem form, (p+u) then the second order count is given by (p+u)^2 = pp
+ up + pu + uu. This is the formula for a second order truth table of
four logical possibilities.

The algebra is non-commutative because "up" and "pu" represent two
different operations.
The second order count qualifies the two first order counts with four
counts: "pp" means that the most prefered candidate has votes
re-distributed to next preferences; "up" means the most unprefered
candidate has votes transfered to next preferences. The candidates keep
values for these two counts are averaged for an election count. The
process is repeated, with pu and uu, for an average exclusion count,
which is inverted, and averaged with the average election count, for an
over-all average result.

In turn, a third order count (p+u)^3 may qualify the second order count.

Normally it should not be necessary to determine an election result by
higher order counts. In any case, the system requires an automated
count, extending Meek method (which might be described as a sustained
surpluses count). Binomial STV would not include the Meek method add-on
of reducing the quota, as the preferences run out, because with Binomial
STV, the abstentions are part of the whole preference information.

from
Richard Lung.
*,*

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20150916/2ebfbb6a/attachment.htm>
```