Thanks Greg for providing the answer before I did. An election method has no need to be summable for any efficient team to make sure it gets the good result.
We should audit the election process. As I said earlier, STV can use computers but it can be overchecked easily later using pen, paper and phones...
From: Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [EM] In defense of the Electoral College (was Re: Making a Bad Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 18:20:08 -0500 > I.e. IRV would necessitate that the federal government be responsible > for counting all the nation's ballots if IRV were used to elect the > President - so we can expect all IRV/STV proponents to oppose national > popular vote for president. That is incorrect. IRV need only be centrally *coordinated*, not centrally counted. As they do in Australia, each state counts and publicly reports its first choice totals for each candidate. If any candidate has a majority of the first choices, then that candidate wins and the election is over. If no candidate has a majority, the federal government would direct the states which candidates to eliminate. The formula for determining those candidates is public knowledge, as are the first choice tallies obviously, so there's no concern the federal government would give the states an inaccurate set of candidates to eliminate. The states then count the ballots for the eliminated candidates and report their new tallies. The process continues until a candidate has a majority. The states do the counting themselves, and they can delegate to individual counties or cities and towns if they wish. Here's my preference order: IRV > NPV with top-two runoff > NPV > Electoral College Greg ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
