Forest Simmons recently reaffirmed that policy confined them to forms of elimination count, in IRV. As he said before, they are all non-monotonic. The fact that colleagues are persisting in this course, however, implies that this is not a fatal objection, to them. I believe that it is only an issue, if it all, on the basis of a flawed assumption that elections are like an axiomatic system, not allowing any untoward consequences, such as a Riker example, and many others. >From the statistical viewpoint, non-monotonicity might be just “noise” in a system. In an attempt to disprove this, one team resorted to the case of NASA using the (traditional) single transferable vote (the best available system) to estimate the collective view of their engineers, on best trajectories for a satellite launch.This is hardly a convincing instance of supposedly “chaotic” consequences of non-monotonicity in STV elections of human candidates. Well over a century of STV usage demonstrates, all things being equal, that the preference vote reliably corresponds to the proportional count. The more proportional the count, in larger constituencies, the greater the proportion of first preferences elected, together with a relatively few higher preferences.Negligible evidence of chaotic results with STV has been provided. “The possibility of later harm,” alleged of parents, is an argument used by social services, in Britain, to excuse forced adoptions. It cannot be disproved. It is a superstition and persecution, incapable of scientific disproof, unworthy of a modern knowledge-based society. Likewise, a similar unproven and unprovable excuse against the use of STV, made, by a career party, in the Plant report, citing Riker, without demonstration, that stv is "chaotic." Elections have been derided precisely because they are only “a statistic,” as if the public are an uninformed rabble, unworthy of consultation, except perhaps to humor them.But elections are not an axiomatic system, with a predetermined result to every election. Thus, I submit that failure to conserve preferential vote information, or indeed proportional count information (failure to conserve individual and collective information) is a better criterion of representation, than non-monotonicity, in first past the post election counts and last past the post elimination counts. I invented a binomial stv system conserving all the preferences in the count (over a 4 or 5 seat minimal proportionality).  Regards, Richard Lung.

Hi Richard, I'm not quite sure what you're saying below, but the Later-no-harm criterion is an argument *for* traditional STV, not against it. Kevin (end) Le lundi 23 janvier 2023 à 14:51:20 UTC−6, Richard Lung <voting@ukscientists.com> a écrit : “The possibility of later harm,” alleged of parents, is an argument used by social services, in Britain, to excuse forced adoptions. It cannot be disproved. It is a superstition and persecution, incapable of scientific disproof, unworthy of a modern knowledge-based society. Likewise, a similar unproven and unprovable excuse against the use of STV, made, by a career party, in the Plant report, citing Riker, without demonstration, that stv is "chaotic."

Yes, Kevin, an improvement on Borda, in that respect. Regards, Richard. On 24/01/2023 07:46, Kevin Venzke wrote: > Hi Richard, > > I'm not quite sure what you're saying below, but the Later-no-harm criterion is an argument *for* traditional STV, not against it. > > Kevin > > (end) > > > > Le lundi 23 janvier 2023 à 14:51:20 UTC−6, Richard Lung <voting@ukscientists.com> a écrit : > > “The possibility of later harm,” alleged of parents, is an argument used by social services, in Britain, to excuse forced adoptions. It cannot be disproved. It is a superstition and persecution, incapable of scientific disproof, unworthy of a modern knowledge-based society. Likewise, a similar unproven and unprovable excuse against the use of STV, made, by a career party, in the Plant report, citing Riker, without demonstration, that stv is "chaotic." >