[EM] "we only get one shot" (Re: RCV Challenge)

Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet at t-online.de
Fri Dec 31 13:29:43 PST 2021

On 31.12.2021 20:12, Richard Lung wrote:
> A reform has to be based on principle not expediency or an easy fix. The
> problem with all these exclusion fixes is that they are not based on an
> exclusion count, in its own right, as well as an election count in its
> own right. In short they are all "uninomial" election counts, lacking a
> binomial election count and exclusion count.
> What this means, in practical terms for the present, is that exclusion
> of candidates is an arbitrary embarrassment, that keeps methodologists
> in disagreement.

The thread is about methods that, while not the best, may be simple
enough and still not entirely bad. So they may lack theoretical
soundness, but that's not the point. For theoretical soundness we have
the advanced Condorcet methods; those are just either hard to describe
or somewhat opaque in their workings to people not versed in the field
(thinking of River in the latter case here).

In addition, not all methods make use of eliminations (exclusion counts)
to begin with. E.g. minmax doesn't eliminate any candidates, it just
chooses the candidate with the least bad worst defeat.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list