[EM] The critical importance of Precinct Summability.

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 2024-08-08 13:59, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> RP, Schulze, MiniMax needs N(N-1) tallies.
> 
> Condorcet-Plurality or Condorcet-TTR needs N^2 tallies.
> 
> Since cycles are rare and not predictable, I'm just not as worried as 
> you scholars are about the differences in Condorcet methods regarding 
> resistance to strategy.

That's a fair point.

> 3 years ago I was plugging BTR-IRV because it was a simple modification 
> to IRV, already in use.  But since I have been convinced that the law 
> should be a two-method Condorcet system.  The law should say what it 
> means and means what it says.  In the most pedestrian language possible.
> 
> Last year we introduced H.424 which was Condorcet-Plurality.  Next year 
> (new legislative session) I hope to persuad e Bob and Carol to introduce 
> another Condorcet RCV bill, this time maybe Condorcet-TTR which might be 
> better, almost identical to Condorcet-IRV, but without all the 
> round-by-round baggage.

What do you think of minmax? No round-by-round, just "whoever does best 
one-on-one against his toughest rival". Too foreign for people used to 
top count methods like Plurality and TTR?

Copeland,TTR would give you Smith. But it might be too complicated 
(count number of pairwise wins per candidate, more is better, then if 
there's a tie, choose the two tied candidates with most first 
preferences and elect the one who beats the other pairwise).

-km