Note that since those results are printed as soon as all seats are filled, the remaining ballot weight (the number next to each candidate) is at an approval cutoff of >=5.
I can't say I understand why they would want a full ordering, though, aside from gossipy curiosity. If it's for choosing alternates, they should be aware that things will no longer be proportional, as others have pointed out. 2011/6/25 Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com> > I added a line to print out the remaining candidates, in decreasing order > of remaining reweighted ballots, as soon as all seats were filled. (After > first finding that if I actually ran the leftover protocol, it only gave one > candidate, because after all the reweighting up to that point, all remaining > voters had rated C112 at least 1, or had rated all unelected candidates at > 0!) > > Here are the results: > > [(2.3733215978628448, 'C112'), (2.2897381094867288, 'C107'), > (2.2889828846114861, 'C116'), (2.0589562392103486, 'C114'), > (1.9386972538747298, 'C115'), (1.8028994309791222, 'C113'), > (1.6913049936093174, 'C111')] > > So that should be appended to my earlier results to give a full ranking. > > JQ > > > 2011/6/25 Warren Smith <warren....@gmail.com> > >> The musical group who wanted me to process their election, actually >> wanted, not >> a list of 9 winners, but actually an ordering of all 16 candidates, >> top 9 being the winners. >> >> >> -- >> Warren D. Smith >> http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking >> "endorse" as 1st step) >> and >> math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html >> > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
