[EM] Continuing interrupted reply to Closed

[Richard Lung]

“I DO object to STV’s negative response”

  It does not matter whether Mr Ossipoff, you or I, or anyone else 
objects to an election method. As HG Wells said over a century ago (The 
Elements of Reconstruction, 1916) voting method is not a matter of 
opinion, but a matter of demonstration.

It is perfectly possible for STV to use equivalent proportional counts 
to Webster/Sainte Lague and the d’Hondt rule divisor methods. Originally 
STV used the Hare quota. The Droop quota is merely the minimum PR, as 
the Hare quota is the maximum PR. I have recommended the average PR, a 
Harmonic Mean quota, V/(S+1/2) which is equivalent for proportionality 
to the Sainte Lague divisor rule. But I invented it for other reasons. 
It just turned out to have that extra confirmation.

As a matter of fact, I hired the programming of (first order) Binomial 
STV and supplied the list with some links, including to GitHub. The 
other day I learned that GitHub suffered a mass malware attack in 2023, 
from which they maybe did not completely recover. I have no technical 
knowledge myself. So I welcome it being looked into by admin, but that 
is why the list has not received the links.

First order Binomial STV is simpler in principle than conventional STV. 
It is a one-truth election method, which makes it unique, not only to 
STV but to all the worlds election methods, which are at least two-truth 
methods. That is to say, they are “unscientific” or inconsistent, 
because their rules differ as to how they elect or exclude candidates. 
In principle, election and exclusion are the same, because one voters 
election is another voters exclusion

Binomial STV (not only first order) uses the same method for electing as 
excluding candidates. In other words, it is symmetrical as to election 
and exclusion. First order STV involves two counts, an election count of 
preferences and an exclusion count of reversed preferences. Both counts 
use Meek method computer count of surplus transfer, in exactly the same 
procedure, whether to elect candidates or exclude them (to an election 
quota or an exclusion quota, otherwise the same quota). The exclusion 
count is an iteration of the election count.

However, first order STV is simpler than Meek method, in that it 
dispenses with its “last past the post” exclusion method, when election 
surpluses run out. It also dispenses with the Meek method policy of 
reducing the quota as voters abstain their preferences. On the contrary, 
abstentions information is counted, thus satisfying the principle of the 
conservation of (preferential) information, fundamental to science or 
organised knowledge.

Regards,

Richard Lung.



On 03/03/2024 02:21, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> My phone fell off its stand, resulting in premature sending of the 
> reply. So let me resume:
>
> As I was saying, I DO object to STV’s negative response, because 
> Sainte-Lague & d’Hondt don’t have any negative response.  …& STV is a 
> humongously elaborate complex procedure, requiring new balloting 
> equipment & software…while list-PR requires no new balloting equipment 
> & no software modification. The allocations to parties & their 
> candidates can be determined at any kitchen table where there’s a 
> hand-calculator.
>
> To return to the matter of Hare single-winner:
>
> It’s true that sometimes the CW is an unliked middle compromise, & it 
> would be better to have the winner-favoriteness that comes with Hare, 
>  which always chooses the favorite of the largest faction of the 
> Mutual-Majority when there is once.
>
> But, to best & always & most reliably eliminated perceived lesser-evil 
> giveaway-need, it’s necessary to always elect the CW, however 
> unfavorite. So I propose RP(wv) when rank-balloting is insisted-on.
>
> … but would support a Hare proposal if Hare  is honestly offered.  It 
> currently is not.
>
> There might be other comments in that post that I’d like to reply to, 
> if I can find it.
>
>
>
> ----
> 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/20240303/6cbef6e2/attachment.htm>