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

[Richard Lung]

KM,

I suspect those comments stem from (an unsurprising) unfamiliarity with 
binomial stv. It has an exclusion count but it does not exclude or 
eliminate candidates, during the binomial count (count of elections and 
count of exclusions, before an over-all deciding count) and so does not 
fall foul of irrationalities from "premature exclusion" etc.

Binomial STV is both a rational election count and a rational exclusion 
count. Conventional STV, including Meek, Has a rational election count 
but only a less powerful ordinal exclusion count. FPTP has only an 
ordinal (more-than) election count.

Fptp is ambiguous as to whether it is an election count or an exclusion 
count. it's of historical interest, that HG Wells began his publicity 
for electoral reform, in 1911, with the observation that we no longer 
have elections. We only have Rejections.

The first lesson in scientific method, I learned over fifty years ago, 
included: Avoid ambiguity in a scientific test.

Regards,

Richard Lung.


On 02/01/2022 17:48, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> On 02.01.2022 18:32, Richard Lung wrote:
>> Yes, Robert, Condorcet methods are not my specialty.
>>
>> But 'What is "an exclusion count"?  Or "an election count?"' That is
>> a good question, not at all pedantic.
>> Roughly speaking, existing voting methods are election counts helped
>> out by ad hoc exclusion rules. All traditional stv, including Meek,
>> works this way, by getting rid of the candidate least in the way, when
>> the transfers of surplus votes run out. -- "Premature exclusion."
> If I understand correctly, then only methods that actually do candidate
> elimination (and fail LIIA) make use of exclusion counts. Minmax (the
> Condorcet method) doesn't. For that matter, plain old FPTP/Plurality
> doesn't either: the winner is the candidate with the most first
> preferences, and there are no eliminations as part of the process.
>
> Did I get that right?
>
> -km