[EM] Vote and count conservation laws

[Richard Lung]

On 26/09/2022 14:30, Richard Lung wrote:
>
>
> It would be fair to say that the second part of my book, FAB STV: Four 
> Averages Binomial Single Transferable Vote, is an informal algorithm.
>
>
>
> On 16/09/2022 10:07, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>> On 9/16/22 05:05, Forest Simmons wrote:
>>> As a mathematician I love formal analogies among apparently 
>>> disparate fields of inquiry ... the greater the apparent 
>>> disparities, the more interesting ... and the greater the potential 
>>> for cross fertilization!
>>
>> I still find it very hard to extract useful information from any of 
>> that. But then I have got Richard plonked for a reason :-) With my 
>> email client automatically ignoring his posts, I don't have to wrack 
>> my brain parsing them.
>>
>> I wonder if any of the early STV theoreticians focused very much on 
>> the count, because I see this sort of "algorithm-based approach" 
>> (where exactly how the algorithm works matters) both in Richard's 
>> posts and James Gilmour's program instruction view of ranked ballots.
>>
>> It's very different from my "ranked ballots are preferences, and 
>> criteria that are used to evaluate voting methods are entirely 
>> implementation agnostic" view -- which I have the impression is a 
>> later American perspective, although I couldn't say just how I've 
>> come to that impression.
>>
>> -km