Manually counting IRV (was RE: Truncated preferences ok for Condorcet (was Re: [EM] Ignorance))

[Steve Eppley]

James Gilmore wrote:
> Steve Eppley wrote:
> > That's true, except there's no need to count the ballots in 
> > each pile.  It's quicker to compare the heights of each 
> > pile by eye to see which is shortest, unless the shortest 
> > piles are very similar to each other in height, in which 
> > case you might want to count the shortest piles if the 
> > group is concerned with accuracy.
> 
> Now I understand why there are problems with public elections in
> the USA!! Nothing other than full counting of every bundle of
> ballot papers would ever be accepted here in the UK. Electoral
> Reform Society procedure requires a sort and a check sort followed
> by a count and check count on each bundle (usually 50 or 100
> papers, depending on the size of the election). James 

Sure, there will always be people who stand to gain after a 
close election is recounted, since the result might change, 
and they push for such scrutiny and the rest go along, 
lacking an understanding of why it's not important. (It's 
like that here in the US too; my comment doesn't explain 
the problems here.  Ballots aren't counted manually in the 
US except in recounts after close elections, and in those 
cases they are supposed to count accurately; otherwise why 
recount?) 

But that doesn't mean accuracy is important, yet James 
hasn't bothered to try to explain why he thinks it is.
Particularly with a method as screwed-up as IRV. :-)

(I like STV prop rep, though.  STV fans might want to check 
out Tideman's variation of STV, described in one of his 
unpublished papers available online at his website at 
Virginia Tech.)

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