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

[Kevin Venzke]

I read Richard as saying that BSTV is not defined for scenarios with partial rankings.
That suggests Kristopher's scenarios actually don't have solutions, and scenarios
relevant to Later-no-harm can't be constructed for BSTV.

However, we could still hope to see a solution for a four-candidate scenario. I think
any would do. That would help us determine whether BSTV is monotone in general.

Kevin


Le samedi 21 mai 2022, 12:24:34 UTC−5, Andy Dienes <andydienes at gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> 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