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

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 04.01.2022 21:02, Richard Lung wrote:
> 
> 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.

Well, when you're saying that:

> By the way, the point is that an election method should make use of
> an exclusion count, as well as an election count.
You're saying something about what's desirable for any election method,
not just binomial STV. My point is that the very concept "exclusion
count" might not even make sense in methods that are sufficiently
different from binomial STV.

I might be misunderstanding the concept of just what an exclusion count
is, hence my question. But if the concept is to be applicable in full
generality, so that we can say that a method with an exclusion count is
better than one that isn't, then there must be some way of unambiguously
determining whether some arbitrary given election method has an
exclusion count or not. And I don't quite understand how that is to be
decided.

In other words, suppose that someone gives me an election method (like
FPTP or Borda or Kemeny or Approval). How do I determine if it has an
exclusion count?

-km