On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 21:16:58 -0500 Paul Kislanko wrote: > Dave Ketchum wrote: > Interpreting Condorcet arrays is usually simple enough to do without a > computer, but best left to a computer with the rules programmed in for > cycles, which can happen. > > OK, I have a system with 293 alternatives and a few thousand voters. If you > think it is simple to cont the 42,778 pairwise comparisons without a > computer send me your snail-mail address and I'll kill a tree to print out > all the ballots and send 'em to you. > I stay with the "usually" that I wrote. Easy to exclude this monster as an
exception but, if this was a true election rather than a fabrication, it likely would be doable by hand (find a popular candidate, exclude all that that candidate completely beats, and you are soon down to a manageable array). I ALSO said that recording the votes in the array was a computer task, so you should be offering the 293x293 array - almost 90,000 16-bit entries. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info