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

[Richard Lung]

KM,
The passage you've quoted does not contradict your thread theme. The hand count of a binomial count is probably simpler than the elimination methods. Moreover, handcount Binomial STV is theoretically sound but less accurate or thoro than FAB STV. 
As far as I know (which isn't far) Condorcet methods are means of cross-checking given methods, rather than a method in their own right.

By the way, the point is that an election method should make use of an exclusion count, as well as an election count.

Richard Lung.  



On 31 Dec 2021, at 9:29 pm, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de> wrote:

> 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.

-km