Talk:Pairwise counting: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(Huge image needs to be converted into text and smaller images.) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1:
== Alternative pairwise counting table ==
I suggest using this table concept from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Burlington_mayoral_election#Analysis_of_the_2009_election
Line 90 ⟶ 91:
:To [User:BetterVotingAdvocacy], I added a new examples section where you can now add the kind of table you recommend. [[User:VoteFair|VoteFair]] ([[User talk:VoteFair|talk]]) 18:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
== Placement of image on page ==
[[User:VoteFair]], with regards to this edit (https://electowiki.org/w/index.php?title=Pairwise_counting&oldid=8660) which moved the large image to a lower section, I think that image should be in the section relating to how to do pairwise counting on various ballot types (what you titled as "Example using rated (score) ballots"), since that's what the image described. I'd like to ask you what you think before making any edits, though. Edit: I decided to just move that image even further down the article, and to add a few details to the section on doing pairwise counting with various ballot types instead. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 17:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Line 100 ⟶ 102:
::: I think there should be separate sections for how to do pairwise counting using: ranked ballots, score/cardinal ballots, approval ballots, and single-mark ballots. Their headings will clarify context, which is difficult to figure out from the image versions.
::: Thank you for your help with this article! It keeps getting better! Hopefully this long-overdue article will find its way to Wikipedia someday. [[User:VoteFair|VoteFair]] ([[User talk:VoteFair|talk]]) 23:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
== Ways of speeding up pairwise counting ==
[[User:Kristomun]], I wanted to discuss your edit https://electowiki.org/w/index.php?title=Pairwise_counting&diff=next&oldid=9855. I later generalized the point that I was making, which you removed, so let me explain my generalization: if there are, say, 5 candidates A through E, and a voter bullet votes A, there is no need to record A's victory in all 4 matchups, because you can just say "A gets a vote in every match-up" and move on from that. This information can be stored in the cell comparing A to themselves. Likewise, if someone ranked A>B, you only need to record in addition "B gets a vote against everyone except A" which can be shown with a negative vote in the B>A column. In other words, instead of recording 4+3 matchups (A beats B through E and B beats C through E), the work can be shortened to recording 2+1=3 (2 votes for A and B in every matchup, and 1 negative vote for B>A) things. If there are a lot of candidates, this can create quite a lot of time savings. I should note that someone who votes A>B=C would need a negative vote for both B>C and C>B with this approach to preserve the accurate winning votes total in the B vs C matchup (though the margin will be accurate either way), so that's the only time it might require more markings than the regular approach. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 03:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
| |||