> From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [EM] STV and weighted positional methods > > Kathy Dopp wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Dave Ketchum <[email protected]> >> wrote: > >> Computer scientists have already mathematically proven that counting >> IRV/STV is an exponential problem in computer science. Far far more >> difficult and time-consuming to count accurately than other voting >> methods. I am fairly certain that your assertion about counting time >> is incorrect. > > Do you have any sources for this? My election methods program implements > STV (both conventional and Meek), and seems to return winners quite quickly. >
My source is a poli-sci professor. I'll ask him to remind me what his source is. > Are you referring to that it's not summable (thus communications between No, I don't mean that. > Or are you referring to the equivalent for space, that in > the worst case, there may be an exponential number of voters, each with > a different order, and so counting is worst case exponential wrt the > number of candidates? Not sure. I'll get more info from my source hopefully and let you know. All I know is that I tried to automate STV Minneapolis style using a spreadsheet and it was virtually impossible to fully automate via spreadsheet tables and formulas. If anyone can show me otherwise by creating a spreadsheet that'll automatically do any STV election Minneapolis style with a variable reasonable number of candidates, voters, and ballot styles I'd be interested. Kathy ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
