steve bosworth

2015-09-13 19:22:07 UTC

Hi Richard,

Unfortunately, my other obligations have

not allowed me to reply to your answers to our 20th VoteFair/APR dialogue

until today. However, before I do so, I

would very much appreciate it if you would clarify a question that I have about

your book, Ending the Hidden Unfairness of U.S. Elections. With regard to pages 22 to 29/58 of Chapter

12, I finally understand how you arrived at the score of 400 for the winning

sequence i.e. Elliot(E)>Selden(S)>Meredith(M)>Roland(R):

You started by adding up the number of

the 100 voters who had preferred each of the three candidates to the left of R,

over R, i.e. 60+70+70 = 200. You then

added the number who preferred those to the left of M, over M, i.e. 70+70=140. Next you added the number who preferred E

over S, i.e. 60. The sum of these 3

totals is 400, i.e. the largest score for any one of all the possible

sequences.

However, please also explain why the following simpler set of

calculations would not also always allow us to discover the most popular

sequence:

Firstly, find the grand total of preferences given by the 100

voters to each of all the candidates (4 in this example) over each of the

other candidates (3 in this example). The result is:

Elliot 200

Selden 180

Meredith 90

Roland 80

At least in this case, the same sequence is produced: Elliot 1st, Selden 2nd,

Meredith 3rd, and Roland 4th.

Why do we also have to calculate the score for each possible sequence?

What do you think?

Steve

Re: (21) APR: Steve's 20th dialogue

with Richard Fobes

>

From: election-methods-***@lists.electorama.com

> Subject: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 134, Issue 1

> To: election-***@lists.electorama.com

> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 12:02:14 -0700

>

>> 1. Re: (20) APR: Steve's 20th dialogue with Richard Fobes

> (Richard Fobes)

>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Message: 1

> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:07:34 -0700

> From: Richard Fobes <***@VoteFair.org>

> To: "election-***@lists.electorama.com"

> <election-***@lists.electorama.com>

el

Unfortunately, my other obligations have

not allowed me to reply to your answers to our 20th VoteFair/APR dialogue

until today. However, before I do so, I

would very much appreciate it if you would clarify a question that I have about

your book, Ending the Hidden Unfairness of U.S. Elections. With regard to pages 22 to 29/58 of Chapter

12, I finally understand how you arrived at the score of 400 for the winning

sequence i.e. Elliot(E)>Selden(S)>Meredith(M)>Roland(R):

You started by adding up the number of

the 100 voters who had preferred each of the three candidates to the left of R,

over R, i.e. 60+70+70 = 200. You then

added the number who preferred those to the left of M, over M, i.e. 70+70=140. Next you added the number who preferred E

over S, i.e. 60. The sum of these 3

totals is 400, i.e. the largest score for any one of all the possible

sequences.

However, please also explain why the following simpler set of

calculations would not also always allow us to discover the most popular

sequence:

Firstly, find the grand total of preferences given by the 100

voters to each of all the candidates (4 in this example) over each of the

other candidates (3 in this example). The result is:

Elliot 200

Selden 180

Meredith 90

Roland 80

At least in this case, the same sequence is produced: Elliot 1st, Selden 2nd,

Meredith 3rd, and Roland 4th.

Why do we also have to calculate the score for each possible sequence?

What do you think?

Steve

Re: (21) APR: Steve's 20th dialogue

with Richard Fobes

>

From: election-methods-***@lists.electorama.com

> Subject: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 134, Issue 1

> To: election-***@lists.electorama.com

> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 12:02:14 -0700

>

>> 1. Re: (20) APR: Steve's 20th dialogue with Richard Fobes

> (Richard Fobes)

>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Message: 1

> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:07:34 -0700

> From: Richard Fobes <***@VoteFair.org>

> To: "election-***@lists.electorama.com"

> <election-***@lists.electorama.com>

el