[EM] Unger, wrt tabulation.

[David L Wetzell]

2012/2/2 Stephen Unger <unger at cs.columbia.edu>
>
>> A fundamental problem with all these fancy schemes is vote
>> tabulation. All but approval are sufficiently complex to make manual
>> processing messy, to the point where even checking the reported
>> results of a small fraction of the precincts becomes a cumbersome,
>> costly operation. (Score/range voting might be workable). Note that,
>> even with plurality voting, manual recounts are rare. With any of the
>> other schemes we would be committed to faith-based elections.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>
I wanted to mention that Approval-voting enhanced IRV and STV could be
tabulated at the precinct level.  You let everyone rank up to 3 candidates
and then you use these rankings to get 3 finalists.  You then sort the
votes into ten possible ways people could rank the 3 finalists.  But if the
third or fourth most often ranked candidates were within a small percent of
each other then it would not require a manual recount.  The IRV cd be done
with two sets of 3 candidates so there'd be twice as much sorting in the
2nd round and then there'd be a manual recount if and only if there's a
different outcome in the two sets of candidates, which is not likely.

dlw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120202/fadac0fc/attachment-0003.htm>