[EM] Truncation not allowed (was Re[2]: Hey guys, look at this...)

[Richard Lung]

There is a way to get round that problem of a compulsory last preference 
helping to elect a candidate, that the voter opposes.

As you pointed out, the compulsory voting of all preferences still holds 
for the Australian lower house single member districts. So, the voter is 
obliged to possibly help an opponent they would never willingly vote 
for. Binomial STV would put the voter back in charge, because when the 
voter ranks more candidates than there are seats, the preferences start 
to count more and more against candidates. Thus, a last preference may 
count as much against a candidate, as a first preference counts for a 
candidate. This is because Binomial STV (apparently the sole birational 
voting method) consists of a rational exclusion count exactly like the 
normal election count of surplus transfers, but with the preferences in 
reverse order. And abolishing the traditional STV "last past the post" 
eliminations, when election surpluses run out.

An exclusion count is not necessarily a negation of an election. An 
elected candidate, on a quota, may not be excluded, on a quota. That is 
to say a popular candidate may also be a not unpopular candidate.

All possible abstentions are allowed and all are counted (conservation 
of preferences), which determines how much the voters are inclined to 
elect or exclude the line-up of candidates.

Regards,

Richard Lung.




On 21/02/2023 00:11, Bob Richard (lists) wrote:
> I disagree with Toby here, at least under some circumstances. But I'm 
> speaking as a voter, not as a student of social choice theory. To me 
> as a voter, there can be a huge difference between ranking a candidate 
> last and leaving that candidate unranked. To put it simply, under some 
> voting rules there will always be candidates that I am unwilling to 
> vote for, even in last place.
>
> This depends on the voting rule. If the rule makes it impossible for 
> my last place ranking to ever help the candidate(s) I oppose, and if I 
> can rank multiple candidates equal bottom, then I am willing to assign 
> a rank to every candidate when truncation is not allowed. But if the 
> rule leaves open the possibility that my last place ranking will end 
> up helping a candidate I oppose get elected, then I would be 
> obligated, as a matter of conscience, to abstain from voting at all. 
> This can happen, for example, in IRV when truncation is not allowed.
>
> If I were Australian, I would end up paying the fine for not voting 
> after every election.
>
> --Bob Richard
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From "Toby Pereira" <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk>
> To "Colin Champion" <colin.champion at routemaster.app>; "Forest Simmons" 
> <forest.simmons21 at gmail.com>
> Cc "EM" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Date 2/20/2023 3:14:01 AM
> Subject Re: [EM] Hey guys, look at this...
>
>> One thing I'm uncomfortable with is the notion of "unranked" 
>> candidates. If there are 4 candidates - A, B, C and D - and one 
>> ballot has A>B>C>D and another just A>B>C, they should be treated as 
>> the same. Unranked is just (possibly joint) last and I don't see it 
>> as having special status.
>>
>> Toby
>>
>>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em  for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20230225/fede5e72/attachment.htm>