> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:46:44 +0100 > From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [EM] IRV proponents figure out how to make IRV > precinct-summable
> Also, IRV, in the general case, is not summable. However, what we're talking > about is the contingent vote, an "instant top-two runoff", which is what the > IRV proponents figured out how to make precinct summable (or thought they had > figured out how to make precinct summable). No. It was my mistake to misnomer the Subject on my email that started this thread. The NC folks did not find a way to make IRV precinct-summable, they merely found a way to count round #2 in the polling locations *after* they'd waited there for however long it takes to count round #1 at the central office. Of course round #1 of IRV is always precinct-summable, but no other round ever is. I've corrected and added to my original email post at this blog entry: http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/41-North-Carolina-develops-method-to-count-IRV-with-precinct-opti-scanners.html The only way to make IRV precinct-summable would be to report all the sums for each permutation of possible ballot orderings, including partial orderings, but that is a HUGE number of sums, usually more sums than the total number of voters voting in any precinct whenever there are a large number of candidates. I've given the formula for how to calculate how many sums would have to be reported to make IRV precinct-summable in my paper "The 18 Flaws and 4 Benefits of IRV..." posted here: http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf Sorry bout the mixup. We should change the Subject of this thread to correct the misunderstanding I began. Cheers, Kathy ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
