[Election-Methods] KPFK LSB election
Jonathan Lundell
jlundell at pobox.com
Sun Dec 30 13:15:18 PST 2007
On Dec 30, 2007, at 12:53 PM, James Gilmour wrote:
> Jonathan Lundell > Sent: 30 December 2007 19:22
>> I've posted the tally sheet (I don't know whether it's official; I
>> got
>> it informally from one of the candidates), temporarily, for anyone
>> who
>> might be interested:
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/jlundell/filechute/KPFK%20hand%20count.zip
>
>
> Jonathan
> This is very interesting and it would be very useful to see the
> Election Rules they used. I don't think these are BC-like rules,
> i.e. applying the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method (WIGM) of
> transferring surpluses. I suspect the rules are more like the STV
> rules for the Australian Federal Senate elections, i.e. Inclusive
> Gregory Method (IGM).
>
> I suggest that, because when Grace Aaron's surplus is transferred
> (Round 21), they show only one transfer value (cell BK7 =
> 0.04476852). But Grace Aaron then held ballot papers of two
> different values, namely 1.00 (her own first preferences and all the
> first preferences transferred to her from excluded candidates) and
> 25.5 ballots @ 0.213867(etc) transferred from the surplus of
> W01-Ahjamu Makalani. If they had been using BC-like rules, they
> would have had to apply two different transfer values. Instead,
> they have averaged, the way the Australians do (and that is
> fundamentally flawed).
>
> They also seem to have used arithmetic of indeterminate precision -
> there is no truncation to a stated precision. Some results are
> shown to 14 decimal places, others to 16 decimal places. The
> differencing values are shown to 29 decimal places. I don't know how
> they did these calculations because my version of Excel (Excel 2002)
> cuts out at 15 decimal places. They start with 2246 votes, but
> at Round 5 they have gained nearly one whole extra vote and then
> they progressively lose votes. If the calculations are done
> correctly and consistently, the vote total at the completion of each
> Round should always be exactly 2246.
>
> Although I can follow the calculations, it seems illogical to me to
> have put the numbers of transferred votes in a column before the
> numbers of ballot papers from which the vote values were calculated.
Yes, that's confusing.
And you're clearly right about this not being BC, which would, now
that I think about it, not be amenable to calculation with such a
simple spreadsheet.
There are some interesting transfers. U16 for example:
=1+1/4/5+1/8/7+1/9/8+1/8/7
I'd be curious to see just how repeatable a recount would be. An
example like this illustrates just how difficult it can be to audit a
hand count of a large STV election. I'd much prefer a published ballot
file and counting program.
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list