[EM] Test elections
voting at ukscientists.com
Mon Nov 29 14:38:45 PST 2021
Hello Kristofer and All,
Can't at present find reply I did make to your test elections.
From memory, the nominal winner was B followed by C. But the real
winner was A because A had almost a quota -- to half a vote -- that was
not a statistically significant shortfall.
Your example reminded me of a methodological short-coming I had long
forgotten. I can't remember why I decided to ignore it, but it must
have been something along the lines that, for practical purposes, the
election count generally over-rides the exclusion count. In your example
it doesn't because it is a mere 3 candidate single- winner case -- the
case of minimal democracy. FAB STV is designed for a minimal 4 or 5 seat
case, and preferably more. I hadn't considered the hand count as a
possibly separate case.
I didn't even bother to pursue the option of statistical significance.
In your example, Formal winners B then C (technically) do not come any
where near the elective quota, at any statistical level of significance.
I may have been wrong not to discuss a significance requirement. It
depends on how actual binomial stv turns out.
A statistically significant binomial stv vote requires at least 30
voters ( approx 2^5 binomial distribution). Thus your second example
cannot be given a significan count with binomial stv, which involves a
parametric statistic. Very small smples are only amenable to
However, I mentioned this issue of Kristofer very briefly at the end of
my latest publication:
Am very tied-up for reasons already given.
More information about the Election-Methods