[EM] IRV proponents figure out how to make IRV precinct-summable

Kathy Dopp kathy.dopp at gmail.com
Tue Mar 17 12:32:07 PDT 2009

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Dave Ketchum <mail.clarityconnect.com> wrote:
> There has been a lot of guessing - let's see if I can do better, though
> wishing to move to Condorcet:
> Precinct-summable IRV is not reachable.  The first counts of top ranks have
> to be centrally summed to identify certain losers.  Then for each ballot of
> such a loser the next-ranked not-yet-lost candidate must be reported.
>  Choices here are:
>      Have precinct do it, since they have the ballots.
>      Have had ballot images forwarded so central can do the count.

I agree with you David. And BTW, I also agree with most of what
Kristofer said and in retrospect did not mean that his software idea
was "vaporware" so much as that it would take at least 4 years to be
federally certified at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars
just for the certification so that it is "vaporware" only from that
sense of not being available for most states to use for a long time.

The federal-state voting system certification process is a mess and
the entire voting machine industry is a mess because they use
proprietary standards and so voting system component are not
interoperable, and the flawed design of voting machines makes it
extremely difficult to check to see if the systems are producing
accurate vote counts or not.

BTW, I edited to improve the accuracy and informativeness of my blog
today, so please give it a second look:




More information about the Election-Methods mailing list