Re: [opennic-discuss] [RESULTS] Reintroduction of past proposals, IR, R1

Well there you go. This proves IRV is a beautiful method should not be discarded.

~ 
Sebastian Makowiecki

On 1 August 2018 03:33:06 GMT+01:00, Jacob Bachmeyer <[email protected]> wrote:
>While my vote was counted as intended, I also now know that whatever 
>procedure is being used here is *not* what I understood to be IRV.
>
>Daniel Quintiliani wrote:
>>
>https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arc/discuss/2018-07/msg00135.html
>>
>> The votes during the first round are:
>>
>> Daniel Quintiliani: B, C, A, D, E
>> Jonah Aragon: H, I, G
>> Jacob Bachmeyer: F, G, H, E, D, I
>> Niles Rogoff: D, F, G, H, A
>> Megan Parat: I, H, G, F, E, D, C, B, A
>> Christopher: H, I, G
>> Amunak: H, G, I
>> vv: I, H
>> Sebastian Makowiecki: E, F, G
>> Katie Holly (Fusl): I
>> Jack Ternan: I
>>   
>
>IRV tally of the above votes as I understand IRV:  
><URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_run-off_voting>
>
>round 1: (considering first preferences)
>    B - 1
>    D - 1
>    E - 1
>    F - 1
>    H - 3
>    I - 4
>11 voters; no option has a majority; eliminate A, C, G for getting no 
>votes; eliminate last place which is tied between B, D, E, F
>
>round 2: (instant run-off; only H, I remain)
>    DQ: null
>    JA: H
>    JB: H
>    NR: H
>    MP: I
>    C: H
>    A: H
>    VV: I
>    SM: null
>    KH: I
>    JT: I
>totals:  H - 5 / I - 4 / null - 2
>11 voters, two exhausted ballots, 9 votes counted
>
>The result would be option H by a 5 - 4 majority.
>
>I move for a follow-up Aye/Nay ratification vote for this result if
>this 
>is to be taken as the outcome.
>
>
>-- Jacob



--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]