[EM] hmmm. Maybe I missed something before SF passed IRV then called it RCV?

[robert bristow-johnson]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] hmmm. Maybe I missed something before SF passed IRV then called it RCV?

From: "Ken B" <kbearman at isd.net>

Date: Sun, July 2, 2017 10:42 am

To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



> On 7/1/2017 8:50 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>> not only is Condorcet simpler than IRV, that precinct-summability that

>> Kathy mentioned is important. Condorcet allows for transmission of

>> subtotals from precincts up to the central tabulation for the grand

>> totals. IRV requires that a record of *every* ballot (and that

>> ballot's specific ranking) be transmitted from the precinct up to the

>> central tabulation.

> = = = = =

> [KB] If the central election office has only precinct subtotals but

> doesn't have every ballot (and its rankings), how would it run a recount?
Ken, i hope you're not thinking that, say, in 2008 when Al Franken barely defeated Norm Coleman that all 2.8 million ballots went to some central location in St. Paul to be recounted.



--
r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20170702/7cf95ce6/attachment.htm>