<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">In Canada, and perhaps the USA, in some
parts, STV included IRV. Neither (nor indeed any official election
in the world) has a rational exclusion count, and I think the
consequences of that omission is what you are getting at. The
system of transferable voting, I developed, has both a rational
election count and a rational exclusion count, but it is still a
single transferable vote. It is just counted both as an order of
preference and as an order of reverse preference, to extract more
information from the voting data.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">A crucial point here is that (with FAB
STV) no candidates are excluded during the stages of the count,
thus prematurely excluding available information. Likewise no
candidates are elected till all the stages of the count have run
their course.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Richard L.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/06/2019 20:52, robert
bristow-johnson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20fd936eb5e64fb53a655f25d9c8cbf5.squirrel@webmail04.register.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p><br>
<br>
---------------------------- Original Message
----------------------------<br>
Subject: Re: [EM] The Problem with Score Voting and Approval
Voting<br>
From: "Richard Lung" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:voting@ukscientists.com"><voting@ukscientists.com></a><br>
Date: Sun, June 23, 2019 7:26 am<br>
To: "EM" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com"><election-methods@lists.electorama.com></a><br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
> I agree with all this.<br>
> It was said long ago, with regard to many votes per seats
and cumulative<br>
> voting, as by Enid Lakeman: Multiple votes count against
each other.<br>
> Single transferable voting is the way to go.</p>
<p>Richard, do you mean specifically "[IRV] is the way to go" or
that the use of the ordinal ranked-ballot is the way to go?<br>
<br>
Single transferable vote [STV] means "IRV" to me and at one time
I thought it would make little difference in outcome in
comparison to Condorcet. But 10 years ago, in my very own town,
I found out differently.</p>
<p><br>
--<br>
<br>
r b-j <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com">rbj@audioimagination.com</a><br>
<br>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."<br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>