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

Richard Lung voting at ukscientists.com
Thu Jan 6 11:52:06 PST 2022


KM, Fair enough.

Where a voting methods exclusion count rates on the scales of 
measurement should be some indication.

I refer to the measurement scales given by SS Stevens, in the journal, 
Science: classificatory; ordinal; interval; ratio, in order of 
increasing power of measurement.

Usually, exclusion counts are on a scale of more or less (ordinal scale) 
to determine who is excluded.

FPTP uses a single count, that is ambiguously an election count or an 
exclusion count or both, which is an ordinal scale count.

Traditional stv including Meek uses an ordinal scale exclusion count -- 
Last Past The Post, instead of first past the post.

Binomial stv uses both a rational election count and a rational 
exclusion count. These counts are averaged, to give an over-all result, 
still in terms of keep values, extending on the keep value (ratio of 
quota over a candidates total vote) introduced by Brian Meek.

The binomial stv exclusion count, of voter unpreference, is the reverse 
or inverse of the election count. And is inverted to give a 
supplementary election count. The two counts can then be averaged with 
the geometric mean, giving greater and more precise use of preferential 
information than traditional stv.

Regards,

Richard Lung.



On 04/01/2022 22:55, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> 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


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list