plurality sort? (was Re: Condorcet tally shortcut?)

[Steve Eppley]

Mike O wrote:
>Yes, that seems like it would speed the count, but I'd add that the
>alternatives should first be ordered according to their 1st choice
>vote totals, their Plurality counts, and the winner-so-far should
>take on the highest alternative in that list that it hasn't taken
>on yet.
-snip-

I mentioned the possibility of using "plurality" instead of random
picks or "smallest LO[]" picks, but I couldn't determine whether
that would really decrease the number of pairings to be counted. 

The example I provided showed a case where it didn't, and spatial
analysis suggests the Condorcet winner be a compromise without a lot
of first place votes.

So why do you suggest sorting first according to plurality score?

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)