[EM] Simplest Condorcet method to hand count?

[Daniel Kirslis]

Hi Etjon,

This is an interesting question. I agree that the hand-countability of
ballots, at least in the case of an audit, is an important practical
feature of an election.

I wonder if the ballot design itself could be modified to suit Condorcet
methods. So, you rank your candidates on the touch screen voting machine.
Then, the voting machine prints out your ballot, as is the case now.
However, rather than simply printing a piece of paper with your ranking, it
prints out each pairwise preference separately. So, if your ranking was A >
B > C > D, it would print out 6 ballots:

A>B
A>C
A>D
B>C
B>D
C>D

Ballots can then be sorted by type. That way, it is easy to tally the
ballots into the Condorcet matrix, and any entry into the matrix is easy to
double check. And, we can audit the count easily, as ballots should sum up
to the total number of voters, i.e., (A>C + C>A + A=C) should equal the
total number of voters, which should also equal (A>D + D>A + A=D), and so
on. And, as is the case now, you would also have a computer count to check
against.

On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 6:41 AM Etjon Basha via Election-Methods <
election-methods at lists.electorama.com> wrote:

> Good evening gentlemen,
>
> I've been pondering the above issue, and already consulted Gemini who
> disagrees with me on the practicality of pairwise matrices, so couldn't
> help a lot.
>
> I suspect that compiling pairwise matrices in the context of a hand
> counted election would be very time consuming, and quite prone to errors
> and challenges from all parties.
>
> Assuming we agree on this (which you might not) is there any practical
> Condorcet method can can be hand counted?
>
> I suspect Nanson is a reasonable candidate. Yes, it still requires
> log(candidates,2) counting rounds, and each of those rounds require sending
> a matrix of how many times each candidate was ranked in which position to a
> central location, so quite the bother indeed.
>
> Yet, I suspect this task can at least be completed within acceptable
> timeframes with an acceptable error rate by most volunteers.
>
> (Interestingly, Gemini considers Copeland easier to hand count than
> Nanson, which I disagree with)
>
> Are there any simpler methods I'm unaware off, despite any other
> shortcomings such a method might have?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Etjon
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20250522/099592fc/attachment.htm>