Re: Numbers of ranked preference votes

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 15:32:53 CDT

At 4:24 PM -0400 4/29/04, David Mertz wrote:
>>>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).
>>two canvassing steps: (1) tabulating the vote lists to create
>>counts of people who vote the same way, and (2) doing the "run off"
>>algorithm based on the tabulations.
>>(1) can be done incrementally, but (2) can only be done at the end.
>True. But it's quite possible the incremental step doesn't do much:
>You will often wind up with a precinct reporting exactly one vote
>for each preference-order. It's a tabulation, but kinda a trivial
>Actually, in practice, you're right that a few combinations (like
>only zero or one candidate ranked) will occur more often. But the
>number of like-vote tallies moved up from a precinct won't be a
>whole lot less than the number of raw votes. Which isn't to say not
>to do it, just that it doesn't save all that much space.

Wouldn't in help in combining multiple tallies from multiple
jurisdictions? Suppose you did statewide IRV for a primary, for

And publishing the final results of (1) before performing step (2)
would be "a good thing" (TM) for enhancing confidence when IRV is

Best regards,

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 23:17:25 2004

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