[EM] IRV proponents figure out how to make IRV precinct-summable
Kathy Dopp
kathy.dopp at gmail.com
Tue Mar 17 03:25:31 PDT 2009
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<km-elmet at broadpark.no> wrote:
> Sure - if you have an elimination method where you batch eliminate all
> candidates but k, where k is some constant, then do a count among those,
> that method will be summable. Since k is a constant, k! will also be. The
> constant would be extremely large for large numbers of k, though.
Well there were two candidates left, and three possible candidate
rankings and 13 separate piles of ballots altogether with at most 7
piles at a time using their method.
>
> I wouldn't call this method IRV, either, but "contingent vote". About the
> only thing it has going over Plurality is that it never elects a Condorcet
> loser.
>
> The summable version for k = 2 would work like this: you have an array of n,
> which is the Plurality count for the first election. Then you have an n*n
> matrix, call it c, where c[a, b] designates how many times A is ranked
> before B. The idea would be to first determine the two Plurality winners,
> then (call them x and y) check if c[x, y] > c[y, x]. If so, x wins; if c[x,
> y] < c[y, x], then y wins, otherwise there's a tie.
Your method if it is correct for this version of IRV is not the same
as theirs, maybe better but they were solving the problem of counting
with today's voting machines. You are assuming whatever programming
capacity you need in the machines.
>
> This sounds like simply bad programming. Having to use different PCMCIA
> cards is a limitation of the voting machine,
Yes, today's voting systems are unimaginably flawed and most states
require federal certification to the voluntary voting system
guidelines which is a joke and a process that takes years to go
through to get a new system that is likely to be antiquated by the
time it is certified, etc. (our entire system for implementing voting
machines is a mess today)
>
> I don't see how that would be messy. Say the plurality count is 100 A, 99 B,
> and c[A, B] is 125 and c[B, A] is 124.
HELLO. I'm living in REALITY AS it exists today, not in some fantasy
land where you use vaporware to count the votes.
YES it IS a MESS to count IRV using this method given we're living
TODAY NOW, without your vaporware.
--
Kathy Dopp
The material expressed herein is the informed product of the author's
fact-finding and investigative efforts. Dopp is a Mathematician,
Expert in election audit mathematics and procedures; in exit poll
discrepancy analysis; and can be reached at
P.O. Box 680192
Park City, UT 84068
phone 435-658-4657
http://utahcountvotes.org
http://electionmathematics.org
http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/
Post-Election Vote Count Audit
A Short Legislative & Administrative Proposal
http://electionmathematics.org//ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/Vote-Count-Audit-Bill-2009.pdf
History of Confidence Election Auditing Development & Overview of
Election Auditing Fundamentals
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/History-of-Election-Auditing-Development.pdf
Voters Have Reason to Worry
http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list