David Kowis dkowis at shlrm.org
Wed Mar 23 14:52:17 EDT 2011

```On 03/23/2011 01:29 PM, Remko van der Vossen wrote:
>>> How is this order reflected in the results then? Currently it seems that
>>> any candidate on the ordered list simply gets a +1, so then what's the
>>> point of the order?
>>
>> Because candidates only get the +1 in order.  So if you vote:
>>
>> 1: Candidate A
>> 2: Candidate B
>>
>> Then on the first tally round, Candidate A gets +1 from you, Candidate B
>> gets nothing.  If at the end of the first tally round no candidate has a
>> majority of votes cast, then the lowest vote getter is dropped and votes
>> are tallied again.  If Candidate A was dropped, then your vote for
>> Candidate B would come into play.
>>
>> Granted the results could stand to be reported in more detail, the ordering
>> is relevant and should be reflected as first choices, second choices,
>> etc...
>
> This would mean that the results posted should be a first tally and
> thus that there should be only one +1 per voter, am I wrong?
>
>>> Btw, you say at least one, if there are more than one then there should
>>> also be abstains, should they not also be counted? And if there aren't
>>> any then there should be exactly one ordered list, no?
>>
>> A true abstain is someone who didn't vote for any of the choices.  "At
>> least one" person voting for both candidates in order does not imply any
>> abstentions.
>
> That's now what I said, what I said was that, at least two people voting
> for both candidates, under the condition that both candidates would get
> a +1, would mean at least one abstain. Therefore there should be exactly
> one candidate with an ordered vote for both candidates, as the results
>

I will resend the results in a format more conducive based on this
discussion. The end result will not change I believe.

David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 729 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20110323/b031d839/attachment.bin
```