Re: Ranked Choice Math

From: Alan Dechert <dechert_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Sat Apr 12 2008 - 13:56:18 CDT

Thanks, Charlie. Well, we may have to deal with this in the not-too-distant
future. I had a conference call with the board of elections for Takoma Park
MD on Thursday evening. I walked them through our demo over the phone (they
had a laptop and projector in their room).

Our demo uses Ping's voter interface code ( IIRC, his interface
can rank up to three choices (the demo ballot does not include a ranked
choice contest). I was kind of hoping they would only allow ranking three,
but in the conference call, one of the board members quoted their charter
where it seems to say any number may be allowed. Our 2004 demo did include
a ranked choice contest and we allowed as many as the number of candidates
(8 counting write-in).

Anyway, Takoma Park may want to use our system and they don't need federal
certification (for local elections in quite a few states, cities use
whatever system they want without regard to state/federal certification).

I agree that approval voting would be better, but if I get a go-ahead there,
we'll need to give them software that will process the rankings however they

I think we agreed early on that OVC would be neutral on voting methods. It
does put us in a position of feeding the Tower of Babel.


> my 2 cents.

> Instant Run-off voting might possibly be the worst possible way to
> do ranked preference voting.
> it's flaws include:
> 1) [...]

OVC-discuss mailing list
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Wed Apr 30 23:17:03 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 23:17:05 CDT