Elect and Exclude. Binomial STV Hand Count Basics

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton said. Monopoly power, principally of the state, even in civilised countries, can grievously oppress the innocent.
No man is good enough to be another mans master, as William Morris said.
Binomial STV is able to exclude, as well as elect candidates. It promotes friends and helpers. It can also remove masters and oppressors.
A Binomial STV ballot paper looks like any preference vote, in order of choice: 1,2,3,4, etc. But the binomial count means that the last preference counts as much to exclude a candidate, as the first preference counts to elect a candidate. Similarly for the second preference compared to the second last preference. And so on.
The exclusion power of voting encourages friendlier and more courteous candidates.
Leaving the ballot more or less blank, of preferences, withdraws up to ones whole vote, from the candidates. Abstentions go towards a NOTA quota, leaving a seat unfilled. A "None Of The Above" power encourages better quality candidates.

I have already written a booklet on this subject – “The Super-Vote supercharged. Binomial STV elections Hand Count.”
I wrote that, when I realised that binomial STV could be popularised, as a hand count, in any local club elections.
Previously, I thought of Binomial STV as a grand logical structure, capable only of a computer count. I wrote a full-scale book about this – “FAB STV: Four Averages Binomial Single Transferable Vote.” FAB STV has higher orders of counts.
Binomial STV, explained in two booklets, is just first order binomial STV. (That is symbolised by STV^1. But, for purposes of holding elections, it is not necessary to know about higher orders of binomial STV, based on the binomial theorem.)
Descending from FAB STV, to a basic form of Binomial STV, gave-up a modicum of accuracy, to achieve much greater simplicity. Traditional hand counted STV has been producing reliable election results for over a century. Binomial STV could adopt that advantage. But traditional counts don’t have the advantage of binomial STV, which gives voters the power to exclude, as well as elect, candidates.
I believe (first order) Binomial STV to be the best combination of the simplest and most powerful voting method, to elect and exclude candidates.
So far, so good. My first booklet came up with a hand counted binomial STV. Then I realised I had missed a trick. There is an even simpler tradition of hand counting STV, which I hadn’t adopted for binomial STV. Rather than add this simplest method to my first booklet, I decided to write another booklet.
There are several reasons for this. I didn’t want to complicate my first booklet, which is enough to learn, at one go. Essentially, it adopts Gregory method, which is the arithmetic of how to transfer an elected candidates surplus vote, equitably, to all that candidates next preferences.
This second booklet also explains how to adopt Gregory method to binomial STV. But it does this, in the context of a simpler non-arithmetic method of transfering surplus votes to their next preferences. This non-arithmetic method takes a random sample, the size of a candidates surplus vote over their elective quota of votes. The randomness of the sample is what makes it representative of a winning candidates total vote, because it favors no one preference over another.
At Irish elections, the returning officers tumble the ballot boxes, so the ballot papers are tumbled about in the box, in no sort of order. This is to remove the bias that can occur, from any ward accumulating a clump of preferences for one candidate, that may not be representative of the whole district. Taking a sample, from any such clump, might not constitute a representative sample.
The Irish method of counting surplus votes, by taking a representative sample of a winning candidates total vote, is also practised in Cambridge, the home of MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

1140422828
Elect and Exclude. Binomial STV Hand Count Basics

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton said. Monopoly power, principally of the state, even in civilised countries, can grievously oppress the innocent.
No man is good enough to be another mans master, as William Morris said.
Binomial STV is able to exclude, as well as elect candidates. It promotes friends and helpers. It can also remove masters and oppressors.
A Binomial STV ballot paper looks like any preference vote, in order of choice: 1,2,3,4, etc. But the binomial count means that the last preference counts as much to exclude a candidate, as the first preference counts to elect a candidate. Similarly for the second preference compared to the second last preference. And so on.
The exclusion power of voting encourages friendlier and more courteous candidates.
Leaving the ballot more or less blank, of preferences, withdraws up to ones whole vote, from the candidates. Abstentions go towards a NOTA quota, leaving a seat unfilled. A "None Of The Above" power encourages better quality candidates.

I have already written a booklet on this subject – “The Super-Vote supercharged. Binomial STV elections Hand Count.”
I wrote that, when I realised that binomial STV could be popularised, as a hand count, in any local club elections.
Previously, I thought of Binomial STV as a grand logical structure, capable only of a computer count. I wrote a full-scale book about this – “FAB STV: Four Averages Binomial Single Transferable Vote.” FAB STV has higher orders of counts.
Binomial STV, explained in two booklets, is just first order binomial STV. (That is symbolised by STV^1. But, for purposes of holding elections, it is not necessary to know about higher orders of binomial STV, based on the binomial theorem.)
Descending from FAB STV, to a basic form of Binomial STV, gave-up a modicum of accuracy, to achieve much greater simplicity. Traditional hand counted STV has been producing reliable election results for over a century. Binomial STV could adopt that advantage. But traditional counts don’t have the advantage of binomial STV, which gives voters the power to exclude, as well as elect, candidates.
I believe (first order) Binomial STV to be the best combination of the simplest and most powerful voting method, to elect and exclude candidates.
So far, so good. My first booklet came up with a hand counted binomial STV. Then I realised I had missed a trick. There is an even simpler tradition of hand counting STV, which I hadn’t adopted for binomial STV. Rather than add this simplest method to my first booklet, I decided to write another booklet.
There are several reasons for this. I didn’t want to complicate my first booklet, which is enough to learn, at one go. Essentially, it adopts Gregory method, which is the arithmetic of how to transfer an elected candidates surplus vote, equitably, to all that candidates next preferences.
This second booklet also explains how to adopt Gregory method to binomial STV. But it does this, in the context of a simpler non-arithmetic method of transfering surplus votes to their next preferences. This non-arithmetic method takes a random sample, the size of a candidates surplus vote over their elective quota of votes. The randomness of the sample is what makes it representative of a winning candidates total vote, because it favors no one preference over another.
At Irish elections, the returning officers tumble the ballot boxes, so the ballot papers are tumbled about in the box, in no sort of order. This is to remove the bias that can occur, from any ward accumulating a clump of preferences for one candidate, that may not be representative of the whole district. Taking a sample, from any such clump, might not constitute a representative sample.
The Irish method of counting surplus votes, by taking a representative sample of a winning candidates total vote, is also practised in Cambridge, the home of MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

0.0 In Stock
Elect and Exclude. Binomial STV Hand Count Basics

Elect and Exclude. Binomial STV Hand Count Basics

by Richard Lung
Elect and Exclude. Binomial STV Hand Count Basics

Elect and Exclude. Binomial STV Hand Count Basics

by Richard Lung

eBook

FREE

Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
WANT A NOOK?  Explore Now

Related collections and offers

LEND ME® See Details

Overview

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton said. Monopoly power, principally of the state, even in civilised countries, can grievously oppress the innocent.
No man is good enough to be another mans master, as William Morris said.
Binomial STV is able to exclude, as well as elect candidates. It promotes friends and helpers. It can also remove masters and oppressors.
A Binomial STV ballot paper looks like any preference vote, in order of choice: 1,2,3,4, etc. But the binomial count means that the last preference counts as much to exclude a candidate, as the first preference counts to elect a candidate. Similarly for the second preference compared to the second last preference. And so on.
The exclusion power of voting encourages friendlier and more courteous candidates.
Leaving the ballot more or less blank, of preferences, withdraws up to ones whole vote, from the candidates. Abstentions go towards a NOTA quota, leaving a seat unfilled. A "None Of The Above" power encourages better quality candidates.

I have already written a booklet on this subject – “The Super-Vote supercharged. Binomial STV elections Hand Count.”
I wrote that, when I realised that binomial STV could be popularised, as a hand count, in any local club elections.
Previously, I thought of Binomial STV as a grand logical structure, capable only of a computer count. I wrote a full-scale book about this – “FAB STV: Four Averages Binomial Single Transferable Vote.” FAB STV has higher orders of counts.
Binomial STV, explained in two booklets, is just first order binomial STV. (That is symbolised by STV^1. But, for purposes of holding elections, it is not necessary to know about higher orders of binomial STV, based on the binomial theorem.)
Descending from FAB STV, to a basic form of Binomial STV, gave-up a modicum of accuracy, to achieve much greater simplicity. Traditional hand counted STV has been producing reliable election results for over a century. Binomial STV could adopt that advantage. But traditional counts don’t have the advantage of binomial STV, which gives voters the power to exclude, as well as elect, candidates.
I believe (first order) Binomial STV to be the best combination of the simplest and most powerful voting method, to elect and exclude candidates.
So far, so good. My first booklet came up with a hand counted binomial STV. Then I realised I had missed a trick. There is an even simpler tradition of hand counting STV, which I hadn’t adopted for binomial STV. Rather than add this simplest method to my first booklet, I decided to write another booklet.
There are several reasons for this. I didn’t want to complicate my first booklet, which is enough to learn, at one go. Essentially, it adopts Gregory method, which is the arithmetic of how to transfer an elected candidates surplus vote, equitably, to all that candidates next preferences.
This second booklet also explains how to adopt Gregory method to binomial STV. But it does this, in the context of a simpler non-arithmetic method of transfering surplus votes to their next preferences. This non-arithmetic method takes a random sample, the size of a candidates surplus vote over their elective quota of votes. The randomness of the sample is what makes it representative of a winning candidates total vote, because it favors no one preference over another.
At Irish elections, the returning officers tumble the ballot boxes, so the ballot papers are tumbled about in the box, in no sort of order. This is to remove the bias that can occur, from any ward accumulating a clump of preferences for one candidate, that may not be representative of the whole district. Taking a sample, from any such clump, might not constitute a representative sample.
The Irish method of counting surplus votes, by taking a representative sample of a winning candidates total vote, is also practised in Cambridge, the home of MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


Product Details

BN ID: 2940165064814
Publisher: Richard Lung
Publication date: 10/23/2021
Sold by: Smashwords
Format: eBook
File size: 1 MB

About the Author

My later years acknowledge the decisive benefit of the internet and the web in allowing me the possibility of publication, therefore giving the incentive to learn subjects to write about them.

While, from my youth, I acknowledge the intellectual debt that I owed a social science degree, while coming to radically disagree, even as a student, with its out-look and aims.

Whereas from middle age, I acknowledge how much I owed to the friendship of Dorothy Cowlin, largely the subject of my e-book, Dates and Dorothy. This is the second in a series of five books of my collected verse. Her letters to me, and my comments came out, in: Echoes of a Friend.....

Authors have played a big part in my life.
Years ago, two women independently asked me: Richard, don't you ever read anything but serious books?
But Dorothy was an author who influenced me personally, as well as from the written page. And that makes all the difference.
I was the author of the Democracy Science website since 1999. This combined scientific research with democratic reform. It is now mainly used as an archive. Since 2014, I have written e-books.
I have only become a book author myself, on retiring age, starting at stopping time!
2014, slightly modified 2022.

From the B&N Reads Blog

Customer Reviews