Anonymous user
Summability criterion: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(terminology to reflect Russ' suggestion on the mailing list) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1:
Each vote should map onto a summable array, where the summation operation is associative and commutative, and the winner should be determined from the array sum for all votes cast. An election method is ''kth-order summable'' if there exists a constant ''c'' such that in any election with ''n'' candidates, the required size of the
== Summable Methods ==
Line 32:
== Importance of summability ==
The summability criterion addresses implementation logistics. Election methods with lower summability
Suppose, for example, that the number of candidates is ten. Under first-order summable methods like [[plurality voting|plurality]] or [[Approval voting]], the votes at any level (precinct, ward, county, etc.) can be compressed into a list of ten numbers. For [[Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping]], a
IRV therefore requires far more data transfer and storage than the other methods. Modern networking and computer technology can handle it, but that is beside the point. The biggest challenge in using computers for public elections will always be security and integrity. If many thousands of times more data needs to be transferred and stored, verification becomes more difficult and the potential for fraudulent tampering becomes substantially greater.
|