Plurality Ordering in Handcount

[Steve Eppley]

Mike O wrote:
>The reason why I'd start a Condorcet handcount by first ordering
>the alternatives according to 1st choice vote is that, though 1st
>choice vote doesn't guarantee anything, it seems that it is a rough,
>easily calculated, guide to estimating popularity. 

My guess is that as the number of candidates increases, so will the 
benefits of using plurality to sort them.  There probably won't be 
more than a few candidates, usually, with more first choice votes 
than the winner by Condorcet, so in those cases there would only be 
a few-1 unnecessary pairings counted.

The 3-candidate shortcut example "wasted" effort calculating the 
A vs. C pairing (the two leaders according to plurality), but that 
is, after all, only one wasted pairing. 

Perhaps another effective and easily-calculated preliminary sort
would be in order of *last* choices (in ascending order).  A kind 
of reverse plurality. 

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