[EM] Simplest Condorcet method to hand count?

[Etjon Basha]

Does indeed sound feasible, or at least more so than Nanson.

Probably overblown on my end then.

Regards,

Etjon

On Fri, 23 May 2025, 10:34 am robert bristow-johnson via Election-Methods, <
election-methods at lists.electorama.com> wrote:

> God, I hate this list server.  I have to always remember to hit "Reply
> all" for it to go to the list.
>
> > On 05/22/2025 8:10 PM EDT robert bristow-johnson <
> rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On 05/22/2025 7:16 PM EDT Etjon Basha <etjonbasha at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Robert,
> > >
> > > Alas, laborious but far from simple.
> > >
> >
> > I think it's conceptually quite simple.  But laborious.
> >
> > > Do you reckon pairwise matrices would be easily computed by hand by
> volunteers?
> >
> > Yes.  But this work is distributed.  Even for a large city (like NYC) or
> an entire state (like Maine or Alaska), it's quite doable if each town can
> perform their own recount independently and the final results of the
> recount are published and are summable.
> >
> > So, if there are N candidates (let's count "Combined Write-In" as one of
> those candidates), the ballot pile (and this is a pile of ballots for
> *only* the small town or for a single voting precinct, essentially for a
> single ballot bag that has the ballots that were inserted into a single
> voting tabulator) is processed N(N-1)/2 times.  For 2 candidates, that's
> once (like for FPTP).  For 3 candidates, that's 3 times.  For 4 candidates,
> it's 6 times.  These are finite numbers.  Totally doable.
> >
> > For each pass, it's about a pair of candidates, A and B.  Each ballot
> has one of three states, which are tallied.  Either A is preferred to B or
> B is preferred to A or there is no apparent preference of either (like
> neither are marked or both are marked to the same ranking level).  Three
> tallies.
> >
> > In Vermont, when we have a recount, when the bag is opened, the first
> thing is that the serial number on the bag seal is read and confirmed to be
> the same number that was recorded on election night when the bag was first
> sealed.  Then we dump the ballots out onto a big table in full visibility
> to everyone on scene.  Then we, in pairs of counters, count out individual
> mini-piles of exactly 50 ballots each and clip those ballots together with
> a unique mini-pile increment (like "Pile 1", "Pile 2", etc.) and a tally
> cover sheet with the pile number is clipped in with those 50 ballots.
> >
> > Then, with teams of 4, and no more than two recounters can be from the
> same party in each team, we count the ballots of a mini-pile at least twice
> and make sure the tallies agree before we're done with that mini-pile.  In
> the recount, two persons (different party affiliation) are the Callers and
> two persons (different party affiliation) are the Counters or Talliers.
> >
> > The Callers identify the state of the ballot.  For Condorcet (we don't
> do Condorcet yet in Vermont), they would say "A" if it's A>B and they would
> say "B" if it's B>A.  Or "Null" or "Tied" if it's neither a vote for A or
> B.  Or *rarely*, there is a dispute about that particular ballot.  The
> Counters will tally whatever the Callers say.  There would be 4 columns of
> tally marks, "A>B", "B>A", "Null or Tied", and "Disputed".  There would be
> tally marks under each column.  The number of those marks *must* add to 50
> and the corresponding tallies between the two Counters *must* agree.  If
> they agree, the roles of the Callers and Counters are swapped and the
> process is repeated for the same 50 ballots.  If the two recounts of the
> bunch of 50 ballots *totally* agree, that mini-pile is done, the tallies
> are shown on the cover sheet, all are clipped together and go to the
> completed pile that the Clerk is monitoring and she puts the tallies for
> that bunch into a computer spreadsheet.
> >
> > There are other issues in a recount and these include what to do with
> poorly-marked ballots and what to do if the callers disagree with what the
> ballot actually says.  This is the normal thing.  But, at the end of the
> day, every ballot is fully examined multiple times and a *consistent*
> discernment of what the ballot says is made and documented on the tally
> cover sheet for each mini-pile.
> >
> > Now, for FPTP, this happens to the entire pile once.  For Condorcet, it
> would have to happen 6 times to the pile if there were 4 candidates.  So,
> instead of taking 1 hour, it might take 6.  But, because of summability, we
> can get bigger crews for a larger town or larger voting precinct (say, with
> 1000 or 2000 voters, that's the biggest we get in Vermont for a single
> voting precinct) and work, separately and simultaneously, on different
> portions of the big pile.  Because the end result will be separate summable
> tallies for bunches of 50 ballots, each numbered and clipped, so if there's
> a real legal fight, the District Judge will know which mini-pile and which
> funky ballot he/she has to look at to judge the ballot's value.  At the end
> of the day, each ballot is fully adjudicated and *consistent* *repeatable*
> tallies are published.  Everyone knows what those numbers are, media,
> competing campaigns, and of course, the office of the Secretary of State
> who will declare who the winner is.
> >
> > > Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic on this one issue.
> >
> > The recount process is nearly identical to what we do with FPTP now.  It
> would just have to be expanded to be making the very same decision for each
> ballot for the multiple pairings of candidates.  In a single pass you do
> each pairing for the whole pile, one pairing for that pass.  That's
> increased *quantity*, not increased complexity.
> >
> > Another thing is, if the recount is concerned about only two candidates,
> like only the two leading candidates are disputing who won and the other
> minor candidates are not disputing their loss, then the recount of a
> Condorcet election only need to process the pass involving those two
> candidates.  Then it's no more work than a recount would be for FPTP.
>
> --
>
> r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
> .
> .
> .
> ----
> 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/20250523/4237c5be/attachment.htm>