RE: What is Data Model FOR?

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 11:25:59 CDT

Mark, I'm confused by your answer.

Since ranked preference voting says: A, B, C is different than B, A,
C, there are more than 6 possible vote combinations for 3 candidates.
(ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA are the full ones; also A, B, C, AB,
BA, AC, CA, BC, CB, and no choices selected. Wow, that's 16 choices.
Does someone have a formula in closed form for the number of possible
rankings for n candidates? For the full ones, its the number of
permutations of n candidates, or n! (n factorial).)

You could list all the combinations and keep a count of how many
times each combination was a voter's selection. Or you could
incrementally build the list of combinations as they were encountered
in the canvassing, while maintaining the count of repetitions.

Once the canvassing is completed, you can perform the appropriate
calculations. As long as you keep the raw counts of combinations,
you can do the calculation as often as you like. It's probably a
good idea to publish the raw counts of combinations so others can
check your final vote assignment algorithm or even do research to
develop new ones.

Best regards,

At 10:36 AM -0500 4/29/04, Mark Winegar wrote:
>You may be able to implement the canvassing of ranked preference votes
>as a simple array of contests. This should simplify the required logic
>of the canvassing process.
>Mark Winegar
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Douglas W. Jones []
>Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 10:27 AM
>Subject: Re: [voting-project] What is Data Model FOR?
>On Apr 29, 2004, at 12:48 AM, David Mertz wrote:
>> wrote:
>> |Does "vote aggregation" mean vote totals? The Data Model I submitted
>> |does have a place for accumulating vote totals.
>> Aggregation is likely to involve move than a simple counter. Maybe
>> the counter suffices for a first pass, on some kinds of races. But
>> consider, for example either N of M or ranked-preference contests.
>> The tallying of rank orders involves more than just counting the
>> votes; for example, in IRV, it would go through stages with
>> reassignments of votes and recounts.
>I should note that the canvassing rules I proposed in my previous post
>don't apply directly to ranked preference votes, but there are
>generalizations that do apply. Designing canvassing procedures that
>allow for self-audit throughout the process is most difficult for IRV or
>STV systems. It is easier for weighted preference systems.
> Doug Jones

Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Fri Apr 30 23:17:22 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT