http://rangevoting.org/Monotone.html
now summarizes knowledge on this - updated & corrected.
Summary at end.
I think the Quas-Smith theorem is rather devastating theoretically speaking -
you get 100% limit probability (if large # candidates) of having
nonmonotonicity existing in your election in
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
wrote:
> I would say that the only way to make it summable is to do it my way, or at
> least emulate my way. From what you say, it seems that they make it
> "summable" by eliminating all but two candidates and then seeing which one
> wins; th
Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
There has been a lot of guessing - let's see if I can do better, though
wishing to move to Condorcet:
Precinct-summable IRV is not reachable. The first counts of top ranks have
to be centrally summed to identify certain lo
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> There has been a lot of guessing - let's see if I can do better, though
> wishing to move to Condorcet:
>
> Precinct-summable IRV is not reachable. The first counts of top ranks have
> to be centrally summed to identify certain losers. Then
Good Morning, Don
Thank you for taking the time to comment on my outline of Practical
Democracy. Among other things, you hypothesized ...
"A retired worker 75 year old who ... is not interested in
being the city manager. He would thus not want the other
two to vote for him. By
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
wrote:
> Sure - if you have an elimination method where you batch eliminate all
> candidates but k, where k is some constant, then do a count among those,
> that method will be summable. Since k is a constant, k! will also be. The
> constant
Kathy Dopp wrote:
Wow,
I had to laugh out loud after finally figuring out these instructions
that Chris Telesca of NC sent me in this PDF doc:
"Instant Runoff Voting, Single‐Seat Contests, ES&S Optical Scan
Tabulation Procedures"
http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/NC/IRVcountingProced.pdf
Apologies for the double post and my logic error of stating that the
IRV proponents with the help of ES&S found a way to make IRV
precinct-summable when of course they only found a way to count one of
the easiest possible IRV rounds (one with only two candidates
continuing in the contest) using tod
Wow,
I had to laugh out loud after finally figuring out these instructions
that Chris Telesca of NC sent me in this PDF doc:
"Instant Runoff Voting, Single‐Seat Contests, ES&S Optical Scan
Tabulation Procedures"
http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/NC/IRVcountingProced.pdf
Aren't IRV proponent
Wow,
I had to laugh out loud after finally figuring out these instructions
that Chris Telesca of NC sent me in this PDF doc:
"Instant Runoff Voting, Single‐Seat Contests, ES&S Optical Scan
Tabulation Procedures"
http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/NC/IRVcountingProced.pdf
Aren't IRV proponent
Fred Gohlke wrote:
> Good Morning, Michael
>
> re: "... you might consider that a strict implementation of your
> method is unnecessary ... "
>
> I outlined a concept, implementation is a separate step. It is, I think,
> inevitable that the implementors will modify the method to suit the
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
