<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thank you, Forest,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Just to clarify, I'm not asking Kristofer personally, for a
theoretical test. I'm asking a group or groups tor actual binomial
STV test elections, with either of the hand count procedures, in
my two booklets. I admit these descriptions are sketchy. But at
this stage, not a great deal of detail is required, as it would be
premature to set in concrete. It's a dialog. You can always ask!</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Richard Lung.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/01/2022 22:02, Forest Simmons
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CANUDvfqU5ORHFbYd2W+At4p3+xKtHTwGmOWPKFUo-X0afx9Cww@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">Richard,
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">For the requested trial he needs pseudo code for
Binomial STV!</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">El mié., 19 de ene. de 2022
1:16 p. m., Richard Lung <<a
href="mailto:voting@ukscientists.com" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">voting@ukscientists.com</a>>
escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"><br>
km,<br>
You are repeating what the rest of my post already says -- the
need for testing in realistic scenarios. -- Not so much to
test monotonicity and strategy resistance. That is guaranteed
by the removal of the ad hoc premature exclusion of
candidates. And replacing it with an exclusion count,
symmetrical to, or exactly the same as the election count,
That is a transferable vote, known to be monotonic -- and
hence so, in an exclusion count as well as an election count.<br>
I have actually given the odd example for illustrative
purposes, which shows that when you swap preference transfers,
it can never create a strategy incentive. That is because
preference changes are always accompanied by a change in the
respective candidates keep values. There is proper
book-keeping of the electoral accounts!<br>
<br>
You should be prepared to be surprised. Being surprised is no
argument.<br>
<br>
You raised a much more pertinent criticism of binomial stv,
which needs to be tested by trial elections, to which I wrote
an answer, not to hand. In any case trials would be good,
instead of preconceptions, if it's not asking too much.<br>
<br>
Richard Lung.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 19 Jan 2022, at 6:59 pm, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <<a
href="mailto:km_elmet@t-online.de" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">km_elmet@t-online.de</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
> On 19.01.2022 19:48, Richard Lung wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Treating an election as a statistic, binomial stv is
monotonic and<br>
> strategy-resistant. I would guess that all run-off
methods, which<br>
> actually includes traditional stv, are non-monotonic, in
principle.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, without an implementation, I can't verify that
claim; and<br>
since no STV method I've seen so far have been proven to be
monotone, I<br>
would find it surprising if this were the case.<br>
<br>
It would of course be good if it were true! But I have no way
of<br>
determining that.<br>
<br>
-km<br>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a
href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://electorama.com/em</a>
for list info<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>