Re: Numbers of ranked preference votes

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 14:15:19 CDT

On Apr 29, 2004, at 2:58 PM, Arthur Keller wrote:
> From your data, it appears infeasible to generate all the combination
> in advance.

Looking at the numbers, it is extremely likely that with a moderate
number of candidates and slots, no two voters at a precinct will vote
the same way. In fact, it is possible for no two voters at a state
level to vote the same way (e.g. 7 ranks among 16 candidates allows 63M
different votes).

What this tends to suggest to me is that any sort of simple
incrementing of identical ranked-preference votes is not really of
significant purpose. Basically, the tallying algorithm almost treats
all the individual ranks as raw data for an aggregate computation.

Btw. Doug obviously knows this, but some other subscribers might have
missed it. Many ranked-preference tabulation styles make
precinct-level canvassing impossible, or at least incomplete. For
example, if IRV is used, you don't have the option of reassigning the
Ralph Nader votes based on who "wins" the first round within a
precinct. You have to gather together all the votes for the whole
State before you can determine who makes it to round two, and how votes
are reassigned. Precincts are largely constrained to collecting
raw-data rather than reporting local tallies.
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:24 2004

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