robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Mar 23, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Terry Bouricius wrote:
[...]
Since the bill, as passed, actually
used a top-two contingent system (only the top two initial candidates
would advance), the tally would be relatively easy.
so the regional venues would report 1st-choice tallies and *wait* for
the central counting venue to indicate who the top two vote getters
are? then the regional venues do a pairwize tally between the two? is
that how it would be done? that's possible, but it requires a two-way
communication and a deferred counting action later in the evening of
Election Day.
A top-two contingent system is actually summable. First, count
Plurality. Second, count the pairwise matrix. The Plurality count will
tell you who the two winners are, and then you just use the pairwise
matrix to find out which of these beat the other.
E.g. if the ballots are:
10: A > B > C
7: B > A > C
6: C > B > A
(23 in all)
the pairwise count is:
A beats B: 10 times
B beats A: 13 times
A beats C: 17 times
C beats A: 6 times
B beats C: 17 times
C beats B: 6 times
Plurality counts are: A: 10, B: 7, C: 6
Then A and B go to the second round. Since B>A is 13 but A>B is 10, B
wins. Both the Plurality counts and the pairwise matrix are summable, so
it works.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
