Summability criterion
The summability criterion is a criterion about the votecounting process of voting systems, which describes how precinctsummable a voting method is (i.e. whether there is a way for two areas, known as precincts, to transmit their vote totals and add this up to find the combined vote total, and if so, how easy it is, or if all the votes need to be taken to a centralized counting location to find the combined result). Unlike most other voting system criteria, it does not relate to the end result, only to the process.
Votecounting refers to the process of collecting enough information from voters' ballots to find the result of a voting method, as well as how the information is transmitted and processed.
Requirements[edit  edit source]
Informally speaking, the amount of data that has to be transmitted from the precincts should be less than the amount of data on the ballots themselves. In other wrods, it must be more efficient to count the votes in precincts than to bring the votes to a centralized location.
Mathematical requirements[edit  edit source]
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 kthorder summable if there exists a constant c such that in any election with n candidates, the required size of the array is at most cn^{k}. If there is no value of k for which the method is kthorder summable, the method is nonsummable.
Strictly speaking, a method is kthorder summable if an election involving voters and candidates can be stored in a data structure (a summary) that requires bits in total, where there exists a summation operator that takes any two such summaries and produces a third for the combined election, and the election method itself can use these summaries instead of ballot sets to produce the same results. This definition closes the obvious loophole of using a few very large numbers to store more data than would otherwise be permitted.
Summability of various voting methods[edit  edit source]
k=1  k=2  k=3  nonsummable 



Examples[edit  edit source]
Summable methods[edit  edit source]
Pointsscoring methods[edit  edit source]
Positional methods[edit  edit source]
In plurality voting, each vote is equivalent to a onedimensional array with a 1 in the element for the selected candidate, and a 0 for each of the other candidates. The sum of the arrays for all the votes cast is simply a list of vote counts for each candidate.
Any weighted positional method can be summed this way, but with different onedimensional arrays depending on the method.
Median methods[edit  edit source]
Alternatively, precincts may sum up the number of times each candidate was ranked at each of the possible ranks (or grades). This positional matrix can then be used to compute the result for any weighted positional method after the fact, or for medianbased methods like Category:Graded Bucklin methods. This shows a contrast between median methods and pointscoring methods, where the grade level doesn't matter, only the strength/quality/degree of the grade (i.e. in pointsscoring methods, two 1/5s are equivalent to one 2/5).
Cardinal methods[edit  edit source]
Approval voting is the same as plurality voting except that more than one candidate can get a 1 in the array for each vote. Each of the selected or "approved" candidates gets a 1, and the others get a 0.
For example, with Score voting, a voter who votes A:10 B:6 C:3 D:1 is treated as giving a 10 to A, a 6 to B, etc. Comparisons across different score scales can be made by dividing the score by the max score (i.e. instead of a 6, treat it as a 6/10=0.6, etc.) so that a voter who scores a candidate a 3 out of 5 and a voter who scores a candidate a 6 out of 10 can have their scores treated and counted the same without any issues.
Pairwise methods[edit  edit source]
Some voting methods, such as STAR voting are precinctsummable using voter's pairwise preference order alongside the total score received for each candidate.
Condorcet methods[edit  edit source]
In Schulze and many other summable Condorcet methods, each vote is equivalent to a twodimensional array referred to as a pairwise matrix. If candidate A is ranked above candidate B, then the element in the A row and B column gets a 1, while the element in the B row and A column gets a 0. The pairwise matrices for all the votes are summed, and the winner is determined from the resulting pairwise matrix sum. The precincts' matrices may be added together to get the matrix for the whole electorate, just like a precinct's voters' matrices may be added together to get the matrix for that precinct.
For example, a voter who ranks all of the candidates A>B=C>D is treated as, in a matrix, giving:
A  B  C  D  

A    (A>B) 1  1  1 
B  (B>A) 0    0  1 
C  0  0    1 
D  0  0  0   
If some other voter ranked B above A, then that would be added into this matrix by adding a 1 to the B>A cell (i.e. increasing it from 0 to 1), etc.
Nonsummable methods[edit  edit source]
Instantrunoff voting[edit  edit source]
IRV does not comply with the summability criterion. In the IRV system, a count can be maintained of identical votes, but votes do not correspond to a summable array. The total possible number of unique votes grows factorially with the number of candidates.
Importance of summability[edit  edit source]
The summability criterion addresses implementation logistics. Election methods with lower summability levels are substantially easier to implement with integrity than methods with higher summability levels or methods that are nonsummable. In addition, summability points to the simplicity of understanding how voters' support for candidates influences who wins in the voting method.
Example[edit  edit source]
Suppose, for example, that the number of candidates is ten.
 Under firstorder summable methods like plurality or Approval voting, the votes at any level (precinct, ward, county, etc.) can be compressed into a list of ten numbers.
 For Schulze, a 10×10 matrix is needed (although only 10x9=90 data values are actually kept).
 In an IRV system, however, each precinct would need to send a list of ten numbers, the number of firstplace votes for each candidate. The central system would then return to each precinct a candidate to eliminate. Each precinct would then return the firstplace votes for each of the nine remaining candidates, and receive another candidate to eliminate. This would be repeated at most 9 times. This is more than the others.
IRV therefore requires more data transfer and storage than the other methods. The biggest challenge in using computers for public elections will always be security and integrity. If N1 times more data needs to be transferred and stored, verification becomes more difficult and the potential for fraudulent tampering becomes slightly greater.
To illustrate this point, consider the verification of a vote tally for a national office. In a plurality election, each precinct verifies its vote count. This can be an open process where The counts for each precinct in a county can then be added to determine the county totals, and anyone with a calculator or computer can verify that the totals are correct. The same process is then repeated at the state level and the national level. If the votes are verified at the lowest (precinct) level, the numbers are available to anyone for independent verification, and election officials could never get away with "fudging" the numbers. Of course, if verified images of all the ballots are available to the public, then the whole counting process is available to anyone for independent verification, for any voting system.
Recounts[edit  edit source]
In firstorder summable election systems, adding new ballots to the count (say, ballots that were found after the initial count, or late absentee ballots, or ballots that were initially ruled invalid) is as simple as "summing" the original result with the newlyfound ballots. Under nonsummable systems, though, finding new ballots means all ballots might possibly need to be recounted. This is not a big problem for computer recounts, but manual recounts can be extremely timeconsuming and expensive.
Multiwinner generalizations and results[edit  edit source]
Most block voting methods that are based on summable singlewinner methods are also of the same degree of summability in the multiwinner case.
Generally speaking, except for proportional Category:FPTPbased voting methods (which notably include Party list and SNTV), there are no seriously used summable Category:PSCcompliant voting methods.
Ebert's method is summable in for any number of seats.^{[4]}
Academic results[edit  edit source]
Forest Simmons has constructed a colorproportional method that's summable in for any number of seats.^{[5]} The same approach can be generalized to make a Droopproportional method that's fixedparameter summable in where is the number of seats, by keeping a separate count for each solid coalition of size or less.
It's unknown whether it's possible to construct a Droopproportional method that's summable in for constant and .
Notes[edit  edit source]
Many voting methods that are summable to some degree can be manually summed in a harder way. For example, Score voting can be counted using a form of Pairwise counting that takes degree of preference into account.
Amount of votecounting work[edit  edit source]
Summability focuses on the amount of data that has to be captured, but not necessarily the amount of work required to capture it. For example, when doing pairwise counting, an election featuring a ballot that ranks a candidate last requires as many marks to count as if the same ballot had been cast without the lastranked candidate. Yet in practice, the votecounters must still take some time to check that that candidate is indeed lastranked, meaning some work is done even while no data was produced.
Number of data value types versus number of data values[edit  edit source]
Summability focuses to a large extent on the number of data value types, not just the amount of data overall that has to be captured. This can make a difference in certain cases; for example, the regular pairwise counting approach only requires (n^2n)data value types to be captured for all ballots, whereas the Negative votecounting approach for pairwise counting requires (n^2) value types. This is because the latter not only records preferences in each pairwise matchup, but also the number of ballots ranking each candidate. Yet, depending on implementation, the negative counting approach actually has the same upper bound on number of data values to capture as the regular approach, and in practice could require fewer.
Counting first choices[edit  edit source]
Some voting methods can be counted like Approval voting when counting:
 Approvalstyle ballots (a ballot that maximally supports some candidates and doesn't support any other candidates),.
 More generally, the 1st choices of a ballot can be counted like Approval for any ballots that rank one (or possibly more) candidates 1st, but show some support for some other candidates, (This means the ballot's support for its non1st choice candidates may be harder to count).
reducing the amount of work otherwise necessary to count them. For example, Condorcet methods can have this done using a certain implementation of the Negative votecounting approach for pairwise counting, or simply by using Pairwise counting#Counting first choices separately.
Twoway communication[edit  edit source]
Some nonsummable methods can be counted using twoway communication, which is when the precincts both transmit and receive information to and from the central votecounting authorities during the counting process.
Most sequential Cardinal PR require less twoway communication and/or centralized counting work than most other PR methods.
See also[edit  edit source]
 Voting system
 Monotonicity criterion
 Condorcet Criterion
 Generalized Condorcet criterion
 Favorite betrayal criterion
 Participation criterion
References[edit  edit source]
 ↑ Hogben, G. (1913). "Preferential Voting in Singlemember Constituencies, with Special Reference to the Counting of Votes". Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand. 46: 304–308.
 ↑ Nanson, E. J. (1882). "Methods of election". Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. 19: 197–240.
 ↑ "Compare STAR and IRV  Equal Vote Coalition". Equal Vote Coalition. Retrieved 20181112.
 ↑ "proof that sum of squared loads is precinctsummable". 20200114. Retrieved 20200429.
 ↑ "answer to puzzle 15". RangeVoting.org. 20070201. Retrieved 20200211.
See also[edit  edit source]
 Voting system
 Monotonicity criterion
 Condorcet Criterion
 Generalized Condorcet criterion
 Favorite betrayal criterion
 Participation criterion
Some parts of this article are derived with permission from text at http://electionmethods.org
This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors). 
This page was migrated from the "Summability_criterion" page on wiki.electorama.com. To view the authors prior to the migration, view the "Summability_criterion" page edit history prior to 20181001 