Mike O wrote: >Yes, that seems like it would speed the count, but I'd add that the >alternatives should first be ordered according to their 1st choice >vote totals, their Plurality counts, and the winner-so-far should >take on the highest alternative in that list that it hasn't taken >on yet. -snip- I mentioned the possibility of using "plurality" instead of random picks or "smallest LO[]" picks, but I couldn't determine whether that would really decrease the number of pairings to be counted. The example I provided showed a case where it didn't, and spatial analysis suggests the Condorcet winner be a compromise without a lot of first place votes. So why do you suggest sorting first according to plurality score? ---Steve (Steve Eppley [EMAIL PROTECTED])