[EM] how come i hadn't heard about "Meek STV" before on this list?

[Richard Lung]

Hello Robert,


The reply from Kristofer seems a fair description of Meek STV. That is 
so far as I understand the usual technical language used on this list.
The thing about Meek method is that it seems to offer only a marginal 
improvement in fairness on traditional STV, at a great cost in extra 
complexity. It has to be computer-counted, after all.
But this is deceptive. Meek method introduces a new and key concept: the 
re-adjustable keep value.

As I have explained before, on this list, this idea made possible my 
system of Binomial STV, which extends keep values to candidates in 
deficit, as well as in surplus of a quota. When every candidate has a 
quantified keep value irrespective of being elected or not, in a given 
count, that means a candidate only needs to have a keep value that is 
elective, as an average of more than one count.
The bi- in Binomial STV means there are two basic kinds of count: the 
usual election count of preference votes, and a new rational exclusion 
count of voters preferences in reverse order. Exclusion keep values are 
inverted to make them comparable and averagable with election keep values.

This proper exclusion count, in its own right, does away with the 
problem of premature exclusion of candidates, and sets the system apart 
from all the worlds present electoral systems, which rely on arbitrary 
exclusions of candidates or parties.
This theoretical improvement has its most dramatic impact on single 
vacancy elections, where premature exclusion of candidates is at its 
grossest.

The simplest (first order) Binomial STV procedure consists of averaging 
one election count with one exclusion count.

In order for the exclusion count not to be given undue importance, 
compared to the election count, (abstentions-inclusive keep-value 
averaged) Binomial STV counts all preferences, including abstentions, 
which if they reach a quota, leave a seat unfilled.
Kristofer recently supplied an artificially simple STV election for me 
to show how the system would work. And I have previously posted the link:
http://www.voting.ukscientists.com/Binomial_STV.html

I would like to persuade some organisation to do preliminary trials on 
Binomial STV.
It would need to be coded, from where the Meek STV computer program 
leaves off. Unlike Meek method, there would be no successive reduction 
of the Droop quota, as the preferences run out with each round. This 
obviously follows from the fact that Binomial STV counts all 
preferences, including abstentions, maximising (preference) information, 
a basic goal of scientific progress.

from
Richard Lung.


On 15/03/2016 01:39, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> maybe it was because i wasn't paying attention, but i hadn't even 
> heard of this until looking into elections for moderators at Stack 
> Exchange.
>
> also, are Jeff O'Neill and/or Chuck Sipos of OpaVote.com on this EM 
> mailing list?  would you be willing to discuss here the ideas your 
> website promotes regarding the "Best way to elect..."?
>
> http://blog.opavote.com/2015/11/electing-single-person.html
>
> http://blog.opavote.com/2016/02/best-methods-for-electing-group-of.html
>
> also, what to others on this list think of Meek STV?  i would love to 
> hear pros and cons?
>
> and can we discuss Condorcet methods for multi-winner elections?
>
>
> --
>
>
> r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com
>
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info


-- 
Richard Lung.

E-books (mostly available free or reader-sets-price)
http://www.voting.ukscientists.com/colverse.html
Includes the series of books on:
Democracy Science (starting with electoral reform and research);
Commentaries (literature and liberty; science and democracy);
Collected verse (in five books).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20160315/7bba9683/attachment.htm>