Re: Precinct canvassing and ranked-order

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 16:32:24 CDT

At 5:08 PM -0400 4/29/04, David Mertz wrote:
>On Apr 29, 2004, at 3:28 PM, Douglas W. Jones wrote:
>>Similarly, for STV/IRV systems, you treat the ABC race as 3 races, one for
>>first place, one for second place, and one for third place, and reconcile
>>votes that way as you're carrying votes forward from the precinct to the
>>center. These numbers aren't the overall winners, just a convenient
>>reconciliation rule. Again, cheaper than n!
>
>I'm sure Doug must mean something other than what this seems to say
>(on my reading). It looks like he is suggesting that a total of
>first place, second place, etc. votes at a precinct contains enough
>information to decide an IRV winner at an aggregate level. I had to
>do a double-take to make sure I wasn't missing something in the
>algorithm (Doug's thing SEEMS lossy, but I wanted an example to make
>sure). So here's a concrete example.

No, I got confused too. He's not computing the winner in the manner
described, but rather *reconciling* using the manner described. Just
like any checksum that is lossy, reconciliation often uses lossy
summaries. The canvassing uses the actual votes, of course, or the
kind of minimal summarization I mentioned.

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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