[EM] Notes on a few Later-no-harm methods

[Andy Dienes]

Hi Richard,

I, too, have had a hard time understanding exactly what are the mechanics
of Binomial STV. I have read your full posts, and I think it would clear it
up for me if you would indeed give a "shut up and calculate" worked example
of the type that Kristofer has sent. Please, without the philosophy and
motivation for the method interspersed, just walk through the calculation
of winners for Binomial STV the same way a computer program would.

-Andy

On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 3:57 AM Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com>
wrote:

> Thank you, Kristofer,
>
> I refer you to the post as a whole, not just the first couple of lines,
> for my answer.
>
> It's not just a matter of "shut up and calculate" to quote a famous
> grouse of hapless quantum theory students.
>
> (You make me suspect you are an instructor. However, I appreciate your
> consideration and competance.)
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Lung.
>
>
> On 16/05/2022 10:13, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> > On 16.05.2022 08:20, Richard Lung wrote:
> >>
> >> Binomial STV is later no harm, unlike Borda count, because uses keep
> >> values , equivalent to Gregory method, for both election and exclusion
> >> counts.
> > I would like to check that for myself. That's why I've asked (three
> > times) if you could give me the concrete keep and exclude values, and
> > the winners, for particular example elections involving truncation.
> >
> > Could you please do that?
> >
> > -km
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20220521/58b3f36b/attachment.html>