[EM] Fwd: Is it professional?

[David L Wetzell]

I limit the collection of ranking info to up to 3 rankings per voter, which
is useful for practical purposes, and then treat the up to 3 rankings per
voter as approval votes to determine which three of the umpteen candidates
proceed.  I then process those three with the standard IRV to find the
winner.

dlw

dlw


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Benjamin Grant <panjakrejn at gmail.com>wrote:

> So if I understand you:
>
> You have a single election. You permit people to rank up to 3 candidates,
> no more.  You eliminate form consideration all but the top 3 people who
> were ranked, regardless of what rank they got. Then, with only those three
> left, you proceed to process them with standard IRV to find the winner.
>
> Is that a correct summation of you system, do I understand it right?
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:19 AM, David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> To: Benjamin Grant <benn at 4efix.com>
>>
>>
>> Most IRV in real world limits the rankings to 3 candidates per voter.
>> In my approach, I treat the rankings as approval votes in the first round
>> and tally up the number of times each candidate gets "ranked" to
>> determine 3 finalists.There are 10 ways to rank 3 finalists so I sort the
>> votes into these 10 categories, tally them up and use the info to have an
>> instant runoff vote among the 3 finalists.
>>
>> Ben, this is the approach that I said gave the same result for all of the
>> cases you brought up in your initial email to the list, which illustrated
>> why you thought IRV was flawed.
>> dlw
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20130624/d78a91ec/attachment-0004.htm>