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

[Richard Lung]

BSTV does not handle equal preferences ("ilections") on principle. I 
just don't want to go there for the purpose of elections, (choosing-out).

BSTV handles both all preferences filled and missing rankings.

Help and Harm are both made possible to the Election count by the 
Exclusion count, but they are based on the preference information, and 
not on some assumption or guess about voters wishes. Thus a candidate 
who does not land an exclusion quota is helped to consolidate the 
election quota. Whereas an exclusion quota (with surplus exclusions) 
will harm the candidates election prospects.

That 3-candidate example was rudimentary, as maybe was my assessment of it!

RL


On 22/05/2022 20:42, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> On 21.05.2022 21:29, Kevin Venzke wrote:
>> 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.
> That might be the case, but then we can't say that BSTV passes LNHarm,
> as it's out of scope for methods that only handle complete rankings.
>
> Perhaps Richard is saying that he's going to construct BSTV using a
> framework and that, due to general properties of that framework, the
> resulting method must pass LNHarm. That would let him say that BSTV
> passes LNHarm without knowing just what the method is going to become.
>
> But his terminology is indeed rather opaque to me and so I have no
> chance of verifying such a general proof. About the only thing I can say
> for sure is that BSTV can't pass both LNHarm and LNHelp.
>
> I'll see if I can infer anything from the clarification that BSTV elects
> C in my example elections. The keep and exclude values would've been
> very useful.
>
> -km