<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">“Monotonic” Binomial STV</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">I was told (hello Kristofer) that I could not say
that binomial STV is “monotonic”</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> unlike traditional or conventional STV. But I gave
my reasons why I could say this, and they were not contradicted
or even answered. It is not tabu or forbidden to say, and say
again, what there is good reason to believe is true, whatever
the prevailing view.</span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">In conventional STV, the transfer of surpluses, over
a quota, to next preferences is monotonic. There is “later no
harm” unlike the Borda count. The intermediate Plant report
quoted a non-monotonic test example from Riker, to justify their
rejection of STV. This was based solely on the perverse outcome
of a different candidate being last past the post, for
elimination.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Riker made the unsupported claim that STV is
“chaotic.” From a century of STV usage, he did not provide a
single real case of this. The record is that STV counts well
approximate STV votes, all things considered.<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">A paper that tried to provide some doubt, of STV as
a well-behaved system, drew not on a conventional STV election
of candidates, but on NASA using STV for outer space engineers
to vote on a set of best trajectories (I forget where).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Traditional STV is not “chaotic”. It is not even
wrong. It is just an initial or first approximation of binomial
STV, a zero order binomial STV.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Zero order STV is a uninomial count that does not
clearly distinguish between an election count or an exclusion
count. In 1912, HG Wells said of FPTP, we no longer have
elections we only have Rejections. From first order Binomial
STV, the two counts, election and exclusion counts, are clearly
distinguished and both made operational.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Binomial STV does not exclude candidates during the
count. It uses an exclusion count, to help determine a final
election. This exclusion count is exactly the same or
symmetrical to the (monotonic) transfer of surplus votes in an
election count.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">In both election and exclusion counts, Gregory
Method or the senatorial rules are expressed in terms of keep
values, which enable proper book-keeping of all preferences.
Keep values can keep track of all the preference votes,
including abstentions. So, no perverse results are possible from
the chance exclusion of preferences from this or that candidate
last past the post. This is also why binomial STV is one
complete dimension of choice.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""></span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Binomial STV has “Independence of Irrelevant
Alternatives.” For instance, it makes no difference what level
the quota is set, to the order of the candidates keep values,
their order of election. It is just that bigger quotas raise the
threshold of election.</span><span style="font-size:16.0pt"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Richard Lung.<br>
</span></p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]--></p>
</body>
</html>