Re: Precinct canvassing and ranked-order

From: Jeff Almeida <spud_at_spudzeppelin_dot_com>
Date: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 11:04:10 CDT

Also Sprach Alan Dechert:
>Fail to see the problem. Our Ballot Reconciliation Procedure (when working
>properly) simply reports how many people ranked David Packard third, how
>many ranked him first, and so on.

Depending on counting methodology, there could be radical distinctions
between the following ballots (not the least of which are that it has
already been discussed some juristictions may want them tallied as
patterns rather than on a per-candidate basis):

Ada Lovelace 1
Steve Jobs 2
David Packard 3
Richard Stallman -
Bill Gates -


Ada Lovelace 1
Steve Jobs 2
David Packard 3
Richard Stallman 4
Bill Gates 5

Not to mention systems that may admit weighted results for different
degrees-of-support, pairwise systems that admit cycles, and so on. As a
general rule (it's a corollary to Arrow's Theorem that applies in all but
a couple of special cases), multicandidate elections admit a whole space
of results based on counting method -- recall my less-than-topical
discussion with Mertz last week. That said, there is at least pedantic
interest (particularly among those who study voting patterns like Dr.
Jones) for tallying the actual pattern cast on the ballots themselves, and
not just per-candidate rankings.

jeff :)

Jeff D. "Spud (Zeppelin)" Almeida
Corinth, TX
= 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 23:17:26 2004

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