<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</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 !mso]><object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![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]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026"/>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/>
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">I
noticed you used a points system to count the votes in your
ballot. This is
characteristic of non-proportional counts. In statistics, it is
the difference
between weighting in arithmetic progression (akin to Borda
method) and weighting
in arithmetic proportion (akin to Gregory method). The former is
only used when
a guess or estimate has to be made of the latter, in weighting
classes of data.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">Proportional
counting is more accurate. But mathematics has become
politicised by the
Machine, particularly in their ruthless routing of all but </span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">Cambridge</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">
city elections. (A
similar political spirit has kept Kris Maharaj, an innocent man,
in a </span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">Florida</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">
jail, since the early
nineteen eighties.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold""> Furthermore,
the use of which voting method, to count a ballot on voting
methods, has
already decided the best available option. But a conventional
count of
single-member systems cannot use the best available method.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">However
this does involve preference voting or ranked choice voting,
which is a rebuff
to single-preference votes or the stub vote, commonly called
“the vote.”Voting
for one-choice preferences, in a many-preference ballot, is as
much to say that
personal opinion over-rules the realities of the matter.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">This
is in flat contradiction to the HG Wells statement, that voting
methods, like
anything else, are capable of scientific (knowledgeable)
treatment. Voting
method is not a matter of opinion but a matter of demonstration.
It is
demonstrated that the vote is an ordinal vote, not least by the
denunciation of
“wasted votes,” and the urging of tactical/strategic voting.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">Regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT Bold"">Richard
Lung.<br>
</span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/05/2024 17:40, Kristofer
Munsterhjelm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d529685d-609f-1290-9ce1-907b6a06b445@t-online.de">On
2024-05-18 21:20, Toby Pereira wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Thanks for doing this Kristofer. If I
counted correctly Ranked Pairs beat Benham 5-4 with two ties, so
not a particularly significant result in that respect. But it
must have had at least two more approvals given that Minmax is
between them.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's a good point - I should post the Approval counts too :-)
<br>
<br>
Here they are:
<br>
<br>
Ranked Pairs (wv) 8
<br>
Minmax (wv) 7
<br>
Benham 6
<br>
STAR 6
<br>
Woodall 6
<br>
Approval 5
<br>
Approval with manual runoff 4
<br>
Margins-Sorted Approval 4
<br>
Schulze 4
<br>
Schwartz Woodall 3
<br>
Smith//Approval (explicit) 3
<br>
Smith//Approval (implicit) 3
<br>
Smith//Score 3
<br>
Baldwin 2
<br>
BTR-IRV (write-in) 2
<br>
Condorcet//Borda (Black) 2
<br>
Condorcet//Plurality (write-in) 2
<br>
Copeland//Borda (Ranked Robin) 2
<br>
Double Defeat, Hare 2
<br>
IRV 2
<br>
Majority Judgement 1
<br>
Margins-Sorted Minimum Losing Votes 1
<br>
Max Strength Transitive Beatpath 1
<br>
Raynaud 1
<br>
RCIPE 1
<br>
Score (write-in) 1
<br>
Smith//DAC 1
<br>
Borda (write-in) 0
<br>
Plurality 0
<br>
<br>
-km
<br>
----
<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for
list info
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>