[conlang_learners] Now or in September?

[Philip Newton]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 16:49, Jim Henry<jimhenry1973 at gmail.com> wrote:
> That leaves 40+ other people who could count votes.   Do any of y'all
> volunteer?

I volunteer to count votes.

> If you're thinking of volunteering, take a look at the Wikipedia page
> on "Instant-runoff voting",
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
>
> and ask here if you have any questions about how it works or how we'll
> implement it.

I think I understand it.

> The vote-counters can start by going through and eliminating from a
> copy of the ballots all the conlangs that aren't in first place on
> anybody's list; then eliminate the conlang(s) that appear in first
> place on the fewest people's lists,

and add each such person's second-place conlang vote count to the
count of those who have that respective language in first place, and
see whether now a language has a majority of votes. If not, elimite
the conlang(s) that now appear in the first place on the fewest
people's lists, and add each such person's highest-ranking
non-eliminated conlang vote to the count of those who have that
respective language in first place,

> and so on...

if I've understood correctly.

What to do about ties -- for example, if two or more conlangs tie for
"last" place? The text above implies that all are eliminated rather
than just one of them.

Also, what if two or more conlangs tie for first place?


On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 22:33, Jim Henry<jimhenry1973 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/7/13 Larry Sulky <larrysulky at gmail.com>:
>
>> How about weighted voting? Each voter gets a sizable number of votes -- say
>> 20, or 100 -- to apportion as they like amongst as many of the nominees as
>> they like. Then just count votes. This lets a voter convey not only
>> preference, but strength of preference:
>
>> Does a voting scheme like this work in real life? I have no experience; it's
>> just an idea.
>
> This is similar to but not exactly the same as
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting
>
> Does anyone else like that idea better than instant-runoff voting?

It seems to me more complex than is necessary.

If people prefer it, though, I'd be fine with counting votes using that scheme.

Cheers,
Philip
-- 
Philip Newton <philip.newton at gmail.com>