--- On Wed, 25/3/09, Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com wrote:
Lam wrote:
IRV can be made sort of summable:
http://lists.electorama.com/htdig.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com/2001-September/006595.html
Buddha Buck replied with an IRV example that much more
clearly explained
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Dave Ketchum da...@clarityconnect.com wrote:
OOPS here - The B voters did not name a next rank so 40 A beats 35 E!
Bah, it's kinda like if you correct someone's grammer in a post, you
are more likely to have a grammer mistake yourself :p.
Election-Methods
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
4) To hide the individual votes for
privacy and security reasons. Published
ranked votes open up some doors for vote
buying and coercion. It is quite easy to
generate unique votes when the number of
candidates increases.
On Mar 25, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Juho Laatu wrote:
Yes, good question. IRV votes thus don't
take excessive amount of space and can be
compressed and can be summed up (although
not very compactly).
Possible answers might include:
1) To help verifying the vote counting
process. If the partial
--- On Wed, 25/3/09, Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com wrote:
On Mar 25, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Juho
Laatu wrote:
Yes, good question. IRV votes thus don't
take excessive amount of space and can be
compressed and can be summed up (although
not very compactly).
Possible answers
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mar 23, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
To be clear here, we're dealing with two sorts of election methods.
There are one-round methods, like Plurality, Condorcet, contingent
vote, etc.; and then there are two-or-more methods, like TTR,
exhaustive
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:08:29 +0100
From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm km-el...@broadpark.no
Subject: Re: [EM] IRV proponents figure out how to make IRV
precinct-summable
I don't think it's possible to make IRV (the proper method) summable
at all
IRV can be made sort of summable:
http
On Mar 24, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Gervase Lam wrote:
IRV can be made sort of summable:
http://lists.electorama.com/htdig.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com/2001-September/006595.html
Buddha Buck replied with an IRV example that much more clearly
explained
the method:
Ouch - What I said about IRV missed a bit. Matters little for I still
dislike IRV or Contingent Vote (which I read as running a bit faster
and more often picking the wrong winner).
On Mar 24, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Dave Ketchum
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mar 22, 2009, at 4:24 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
As stated, it's not summable. But note that the second round, which is
determined by the Plurality count, consists of a pairwise comparison.
Thus, one can make the method summable by simply storing the
information
On Mar 23, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mar 22, 2009, at 4:24 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
As stated, it's not summable. But note that the second round,
which is determined by the Plurality count, consists of a pairwise
comparison. Thus, one
Raph Frank wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
In
effect, one decouples the calculation (determining the winners) from the
counting (determining what people actually voted), and one can thus alter
one without necessarily having to alter
Raph Frank wrote:
I uploaded the example ballot .pdf file that the code uses to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/temp_ballot.pdf
Also, some intermediate files from processing the image0001.pnp file.
This is after determining the alignment points:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Brian Olson b...@bolson.org wrote:
I would also like to note to Raph that hosting files on the yahoo groups is
making them not viewable to me, because I don't feel like jumping through
yahoo's hoops right now.
Sorry thought 'files' was open to public view.
I
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mar 17, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Dave Ketchum
mail.clarityconnect.com wrote:
There has been a lot of guessing - let's see if I can do better, though
wishing to move to Condorcet:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
In
effect, one decouples the calculation (determining the winners) from the
counting (determining what people actually voted), and one can thus alter
one without necessarily having to alter the other.
Adb's
Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 12:56 PM
Adb's ballot imaging idea takes this to the extreme. With
pattern recognition software, you could support virtually any
voting method.
The counting process would just produce a list of numbers
corresponding to each ballot.
In its
2009/3/18 James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk:
I'm afraid there is a little more involved that your description would
suggest because real voters do things you might never expect.
But it has all already been done for public elections. Just one example of
which I have some knowledge. In
election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] IRV proponents figure out how to make IRV
precinct-summable
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
In
effect, one decouples the calculation (determining
Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 3:20 PM
Well, as the software improves, this would be less of a
problem.
I'm afraid you have misunderstood (or maybe I didn't explain it clearly). It
is not a software issue - it is a compliance issue.
No matter what software you use to read the
2009/3/18 James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk:
Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 3:20 PM
Well, as the software improves, this would be less of a
problem.
I'm afraid you have misunderstood (or maybe I didn't explain it clearly). It
is not a software issue - it is a compliance
Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:54 PM
2009/3/18 James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk:
I'm afraid you have misunderstood (or maybe I didn't explain it
clearly). It is not a software issue - it is a compliance issue. No
matter what software you use to read the images,
I uploaded the example ballot .pdf file that the code uses to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/temp_ballot.pdf
Also, some intermediate files from processing the image0001.pnp file.
This is after determining the alignment points:
Wow,
I had to laugh out loud after finally figuring out these instructions
that Chris Telesca of NC sent me in this PDF doc:
Instant Runoff Voting, Single‐Seat Contests, ESS Optical Scan
Tabulation Procedures
http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/NC/IRVcountingProced.pdf
Aren't IRV proponents
Wow,
I had to laugh out loud after finally figuring out these instructions
that Chris Telesca of NC sent me in this PDF doc:
Instant Runoff Voting, Single‐Seat Contests, ESS Optical Scan
Tabulation Procedures
http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/NC/IRVcountingProced.pdf
Aren't IRV proponents
Apologies for the double post and my logic error of stating that the
IRV proponents with the help of ESS found a way to make IRV
precinct-summable when of course they only found a way to count one of
the easiest possible IRV rounds (one with only two candidates
continuing in the contest) using
Kathy Dopp wrote:
Wow,
I had to laugh out loud after finally figuring out these instructions
that Chris Telesca of NC sent me in this PDF doc:
Instant Runoff Voting, Single‐Seat Contests, ESS Optical Scan
Tabulation Procedures
http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/NC/IRVcountingProced.pdf
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no 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
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Dave Ketchum mail.clarityconnect.com wrote:
There has been a lot of guessing - let's see if I can do better, though
wishing to move to Condorcet:
Precinct-summable IRV is not reachable. The first counts of top ranks have
to be centrally summed to identify
Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Dave Ketchum mail.clarityconnect.com wrote:
There has been a lot of guessing - let's see if I can do better, though
wishing to move to Condorcet:
Precinct-summable IRV is not reachable. The first counts of top ranks have
to be centrally
30 matches
Mail list logo
