Talk:Pairwise counting: Difference between revisions
→Wikipedia version of this topic
mNo edit summary |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 117:
::: Yes, that's true. I simply meant to show that you don't get quite as much for free as it might seem like you're getting, particularly if the counts are computerized, because you have to add some numbers to correct the non-marked candidate counts at some point, however you do the precinct counts. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 12:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "correcting the non-marked candidate counts". But if you understand that this post-processing stage requires maybe a couple of minutes of work at most for regular elections, then that's good; I just wanted to clarify that the math can be done in 2 seconds by a computer (Excel spreadsheet with the value for number of voters ranking a candidate added to all other values in that row, which will be the number of voters ranking that candidate below another candidate in a head-to-head matchup) whereas the tallying in the precincts could take days, so it's not as big a caveat as the wording of the sentence might suggest. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 21:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I ought to note that I just realized that simply counting 1st choices separately from all other ranks actually has the potential to rival the speedup produced by negative counting in many election scenarios. For Burlington 2009, for example, doing regular pairwise counting with the 1st choice trick is actually faster than negative counting. https://electowiki.org/wiki/Negative_vote-counting_approach_for_pairwise_counting#Burlington_2009_mayoral_election [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 21:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
== Wikipedia version of this topic ==
Over on Wikipedia there is a new article titled '''Pairwise vote counting''' waiting for approval, which, in turn, involves a split request. Here's the link to details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Condorcet_method#Pairwise_Vote_Counting_article,_split_request
The draft version of the new article uses the relevant parts of this Electowiki article, plus the relevant parts in the '''Condorcet method''' article.
Apparently hardly anyone has the Wikipedia '''Condorcet method''' on their watchlist because no one has responded there. Thanks for any help. [[User:VoteFair|VoteFair]] ([[User talk:VoteFair|talk]]) 04:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
:I have it on my watchlist. I just chose not to respond to you. Please read [[wikipedia:WP:CANVAS]] and consider whether your instructions here are appropriate. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 08:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
::Based on your info I edited the above comment to make it clear that I am not intending to request a specific approve or disapprove opinion, just that some opinions are needed. Is there a WikiProject for vote-counting methods? I didn't see one under "voting methods ...". If you know of one then I can ask there. Thanks! [[User:VoteFair|VoteFair]] ([[User talk:VoteFair|talk]]) 05:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
| |||