On Mar 12, 2006, at 8:28 AM, radio deli wrote: Dear Jan, I saw your post on the Elections Methods List. As a Vermont legislator, we may have to decide the issue of IRV on a statewide basis. To be honest, I'm not very enthusiastic about IRV. I would prefer to support the candidate (not plural)
Oops!
And a good thing for double checks!
The good thing about having implemented all these things 4-5 times is
that I had another set of code to check myself against, and that
agreed with Mr. LeGrand's calculations. I found the bug in my new
code which erroneously reported that IRV and
radio deli wrote:
What are the problems you see with IRV? Could you explain them in a
way
that people without a statistics degree (like me) could comprehend? I
hope you have a chance to respond---you seem quite knowledgeable on the
topic!
Here's a great commentary posted by Ralph Suter
SUMMARY of what I see since Rep. Jim Condon asked for help:
With IRV, tie-rank votes need to either be prohibited or the exact way of
accounting for them defined (counting them with each tied candidate
holding the same rank encourages taking advantage of such voting). With
Condorcet, tie-rank
At 12:47 PM -0500 3/14/06, Dave Ketchum wrote:
SUMMARY of what I see since Rep. Jim Condon asked for help:
With IRV, tie-rank votes need to either be prohibited or the exact way of
accounting for them defined (counting them with each tied candidate
holding the same rank encourages taking
Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff O'Neill (who I think is on this list) suggests a tree
representation of an ranked election profile (Voting matters #21
http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/VM/ISSUE21/INDEX.HTM) as a means of
speeding up the tabulation of the election. It seems to me that
