2012/2/2 David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> > > > 2012/2/2 Stephen Unger <un...@cs.columbia.edu> >> >>> A fundamental problem with all these fancy schemes is vote >>> tabulation. All but approval are sufficiently complex to make manual >>> processing messy, to the point where even checking the reported >>> results of a small fraction of the precincts becomes a cumbersome, >>> costly operation. (Score/range voting might be workable). Note that, >>> even with plurality voting, manual recounts are rare. With any of the >>> other schemes we would be committed to faith-based elections. >>> >>> Steve >>> >> >> > I wanted to mention that Approval-voting enhanced IRV and STV could be > tabulated at the precinct level. You let everyone rank up to 3 candidates > and then you use these rankings to get 3 finalists. You then sort the > votes into ten possible ways people could rank the 3 finalists. But if the > third or fourth most often ranked candidates were within a small percent of > each other then it would not require a manual recount. The IRV cd be done > with two sets of 3 candidates so there'd be twice as much sorting in the > 2nd round and then there'd be a manual recount if and only if there's a > different outcome in the two sets of candidates, which is not likely. >
This is indeed possible, but it's several times harder than counting a truly summable method, especially an O(N) summable one. And it's the only advantage of IRV3/AV3, because center squeeze/nonmonotonicity/Burlington still applies at full force. Jameson > > dlw > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
