The nomination period has concluded, and now the poll is receiving votes. I said that I'd chosen Condorcet-IRV (referred to by Armytage's article as "Benham") for the poll's count method. It's one of the 4 rank-counts offered. But actually, anyone looking at a poll result can have it counted by any or every one of the 4 count methods implemented at the website. At the page that shows the results, in the right margin, near the top, is a list of the 4 count methods, with a circle to the left of each method name. Clicking on one of the circles will mean that the results shown will be the results by that count method.
But of course there nearly always will be a CW (as is the case so far in this particular poll). And so, because all 4 of the implemented count-methods choose a CW if there is one, then it would be quite rare for the methods to choose differently from eachother. Most likely, the only way to have a top-cycle instead of a CW would be for a number of voters to use or attempt Condorcet offensive strategy, or chicken-dilemma defection. With Condorcet-IRV, such defection would backfire every time. That's how Condorcet-IRV differs from the other 3 count-methods. The results page starts with an output-ranking of the alternatives (party platforms, in this case). First the count is done, among all of the alternatives. The winner gets the #1 place in the output-ranking. Then a count is done, among all of the alternatives except for the one that has already won. The winner of that count gets the #2 place in the output-ranking. ...etc. Counting among all but the N alternatives that have already won, the (N+1)th alternative in the output-ranking is chosen. The #1 alternative in the output ranking is highlighted. And if that alternative is the CW, then "Condorcet winner" will be written after that alternative's name. Of course, when it says that there is a CW, then of course it doesn't matter which count method is used. So I suggest that, when looking at the results, just leave the count-method setting at its default--Schulze. No point bothering to change it unless you find that there isn't a CW. If there isn't a CW, then I suggest setting the count method to Condorcet-IRV, because that's the one that I announced in the poll introduction. If voters expected Condorcet-IRV, then they might rank more sincerely, and that sincere ranking could be penalized if the count is done by a different method--when there isn't a CW. Therefore, for this poll, the announced count method, Condorcet gives a more relevant result, truer to the intent of sincere-ranking voters who expected that count method. Michael Ossipoff ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info