On my web page where I describe my Proportional Range Voting System (http://www.tobypereira.co.uk/voting.html), I have suggested that it should be possible for a computer to sort out the result in a reasonable amount of time. Of course, this may not actually be the case considering the number of possible winning sets of candidates that you might get in some elections.
So as with other systems, a sequential system could be used. Calculate who would be the winning candidate in a single-winner election and then find the best combination of two winners, given that the single winner is elected. Then with these two elected, find the best combination of three and so on. Then if this takes it too far the other way and makes it too "easy" for a computer to calculate you can select candidates in blocks of two or three. I think I've seen Forest Simmons and others discussing this hybrid version of sequential/non-sequential systems. I think this would still be a very different system to Reweighted Range Voting, especially consdering that it elects single winners in a different way. ________________________________ From: Warren Smith <warren....@gmail.com> To: election-methods <election-meth...@electorama.com> Sent: Sun, 3 July, 2011 20:25:35 Subject: [EM] Toby Pereira, PR voting methods Two are RRV http://rangevoting.org/RRV.html and asset voting http://rangevoting.org/Asset.html A recent real-world election that used RRV is described here: June2011RealWorldRRVvotes.txt In T.P.'s essay it'd be nice if he subdivided it into smaller chunks with subheading titles, and summarized whatever he concluded concisely. -- 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
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info