an important value of a voting system is that, although it may be laborious, it
ought to be able to be hand counted or hand verified.
in an election that is city wide or county or state wide, it doesn't bother me
at all that machines are used to scan ballots. i am a big advocate for optical
Hi,
Say I have a pairwise array that looks like
| A | B | C | D |
===+=+=+=+=+
A | 60 | 45 | 46 | 60 |
---+-+-+-+-+
B | 55 | 55 | 55 | 49 |
---+-+-+-+-+
C | 54 | 45 | 54 | 52 |
---+-+-+-+-+
D | 40 |
If all you care about are margins, then you can build up the pairwise array
from atomic pairs of voters.
For example, I consider ABCD and DCAB to be an atom for AB because all
other pairwise races cancel out, yielding the following margins matrix:
| A | B | C | D |
I would like to make a detailed critique of the FairVote report they've put
up at approvalvoting.blogspot.com and rangevoting.com. I believe that every
single one of the conclusions of that report is dangerously wrong. I've
created a google
dunno if i can do much critiquing of that particular doc. what i like is in
FairVote's page:
http://www.fairvote.org/single-winner-voting-method-comparison-chart
where they claim that IRV will do a better job getting the Condorcet winner
than does Condorcet (sometimes the Condorcet method
Instant Runoff (IRV): monotonicity criterion - Both two-election runoffs and
IRV can fail the monotonicity criterion because voters who shift to this
otherwise winning candidate may shift their votes away from the candidate who
would otherwise be in the runoff, resulting in a different, and
