On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[email protected]> wrote: > Sure - if you have an elimination method where you batch eliminate all > candidates but k, where k is some constant, then do a count among those, > that method will be summable. Since k is a constant, k! will also be. The > constant would be extremely large for large numbers of k, though.
Well there were two candidates left, and three possible candidate rankings and 13 separate piles of ballots altogether with at most 7 piles at a time using their method. > > I wouldn't call this method IRV, either, but "contingent vote". About the > only thing it has going over Plurality is that it never elects a Condorcet > loser. > > The summable version for k = 2 would work like this: you have an array of n, > which is the Plurality count for the first election. Then you have an n*n > matrix, call it c, where c[a, b] designates how many times A is ranked > before B. The idea would be to first determine the two Plurality winners, > then (call them x and y) check if c[x, y] > c[y, x]. If so, x wins; if c[x, > y] < c[y, x], then y wins, otherwise there's a tie. Your method if it is correct for this version of IRV is not the same as theirs, maybe better but they were solving the problem of counting with today's voting machines. You are assuming whatever programming capacity you need in the machines. > > This sounds like simply bad programming. Having to use different PCMCIA > cards is a limitation of the voting machine, Yes, today's voting systems are unimaginably flawed and most states require federal certification to the voluntary voting system guidelines which is a joke and a process that takes years to go through to get a new system that is likely to be antiquated by the time it is certified, etc. (our entire system for implementing voting machines is a mess today) > > I don't see how that would be messy. Say the plurality count is 100 A, 99 B, > and c[A, B] is 125 and c[B, A] is 124. HELLO. I'm living in REALITY AS it exists today, not in some fantasy land where you use vaporware to count the votes. YES it IS a MESS to count IRV using this method given we're living TODAY NOW, without your vaporware. -- Kathy Dopp The material expressed herein is the informed product of the author's fact-finding and investigative efforts. Dopp is a Mathematician, Expert in election audit mathematics and procedures; in exit poll discrepancy analysis; and can be reached at P.O. Box 680192 Park City, UT 84068 phone 435-658-4657 http://utahcountvotes.org http://electionmathematics.org http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/ Post-Election Vote Count Audit A Short Legislative & Administrative Proposal http://electionmathematics.org//ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/Vote-Count-Audit-Bill-2009.pdf History of Confidence Election Auditing Development & Overview of Election Auditing Fundamentals http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/History-of-Election-Auditing-Development.pdf Voters Have Reason to Worry http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
