Thanks Dave, I think I understand Condorcet now and what the = signs are for, and I like Condorcet and see no immediate drawbacks to its tabulation method like I do to the IRV tabulation method.
I would urge that we get a handle on ensuring that our vote counts are accurate prior to using any but the simple one vote per one winner system though because our system is hopelessly wide-open to undetected outcome-determinative tampering and miscount now. I know of no other major industry that is not subjected to any scientific independent auditing. You guys might be happy to know that we're developing election auditing calculations that handle multi-candidate/multi-winner races. The most updated, correct, and simple explanation of the mathematics of calculating election auditing sample sizes is here: Mandatory Post-Election Vote Count Audits http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/UT/MandatoryVoteCountAudits.ppt and a smaller pdf version of the powerpoint presentation: http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/UT/VoteCountAudits.pdf Thanks for the lesson on Condorcet. Is this system in use anywhere yet? Kathy ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
