[EM] STV and weighted positional methods

Kathy Dopp kathy.dopp at gmail.com
Sat Jan 31 22:24:01 PST 2009

> From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km-elmet at broadpark.no>
> Subject: Re: [EM] STV and weighted positional methods
> Kathy Dopp wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> wrote:
>> Computer scientists have already mathematically proven that counting
>> IRV/STV is an exponential problem in computer science. Far far more
>> difficult and time-consuming to count accurately than other voting
>> methods. I am fairly certain that your assertion about counting time
>> is incorrect.
> Do you have any sources for this? My election methods program implements
> STV (both conventional and Meek), and seems to return winners quite quickly.

My source is a poli-sci professor. I'll ask him to remind me what his
source is.

> Are you referring to that it's not summable (thus communications between

No, I don't mean that.

> Or are you referring to the equivalent for space, that in
> the worst case, there may be an exponential number of voters, each with
> a different order, and so counting is worst case exponential wrt the
> number of candidates?

Not sure. I'll get more info from my source hopefully and let you know.

All I know is that I tried to automate STV Minneapolis style using a
spreadsheet and it was virtually impossible to fully automate via
spreadsheet tables and formulas. If anyone can show me otherwise by
creating a spreadsheet that'll automatically do any STV election
Minneapolis style with a variable reasonable number of candidates,
voters, and ballot styles I'd be interested.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list