RB
robert bristow-johnson
Mon, Jun 11, 2018 2:23 AM
Thank you Brian for doing this. Looks like Leno is the legit winner and STV and Condorcet agree.
However, the Leno-Breed pair wise tally in the defeat matrix should be exactly the same as the STV final round result. So something is wrong somewhere.
But thanks for doing this. I was about to code up a MATLAB program to parse and count this thing.
--r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------- Original message --------
From: Brian Olson bql@bolson.org
Date: 6/10/2018 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
Ok, a few lines of Python poking the raw data shows I must have some bug in my Condorcet implementation. Digging into that...
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Greg Dennis greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org wrote:
Brian, how is it possible that those differ? Since all the other candidates are eliminated in the final round, shouldn't that necessarily be the same as the pairwise contest between those two?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 9:46 AM Brian Olson bql@bolson.org wrote:
I processed the latest data (2018-06-09) and posted the results of the SF Mayor election using a few algorithms:https://bolson.org/~bolson/2018/SF_Mayor_20180605.html
The Condorcet win is now 97436 to 91740 for Leno over Breed.The IRV final round is still just 94783 to 94393.
I'm using my software posted at https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil
commands (needs maven installed for compiling Java, and needs Python3):
curl -O http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_ballotimage.txtcurl -O http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_masterlookup.txt
(mkdir -p ~/psrc && cd ~/psrc && git clone https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil.git && cd ~/psrc/voteutil/java && mvn package)python3 ~/psrc/voteutil/python/rcvToNameEq.py -m 20180609_masterlookup.txt -b 20180609_ballotimage.txt -o 20180609_%s.nameqjava -jar ~/psrc/voteutil/java/target/voteutil-1.0.0.jar --rankings --full-html --explain -i 20180609_Mayor.nameq >/tmp/a.html
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Greg Dennis greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org wrote:
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough information to be sure of final results.
Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The "Ballot Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every individual ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you what each number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers, just ping me!
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:36 PM, VoteFair electionmethods@votefair.org wrote:
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough information to be sure of final results.
Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be (probably is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner -- is rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so ballots had this issue. Right?
That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as pairwise counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice" (or two choices in this case).
It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do not drink the FairVote kool-aid.
In haste,
Richard Fobes
"The VoteFair guy"
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-detailed-reports
Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the final
round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case so far.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj@audioimagination.com mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
Richard, a few points:
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
choosing the mayor. however, i think the news media made it clear
that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their true third
choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
champion"). it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the
Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another real
indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV. and your
reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and scanned
ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release
it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner
and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
L8r,
r b-j
> On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
> > ... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
> > a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
with it.”
> > - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
in a
> > progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
fair. ...
>
> This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP,
a.k.a
> plurality counting).
>
> There are other ways to count the preference marks on "ranked-choice"
> ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
> instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
>
> > 1. May not elect majority candidate
> > ...
> > Is this common? This is
> > probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
>
> I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had been
> able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
> simplistic, and complicates the counting.
>
> Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots. Unmarked
> choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked. And
> multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
also no
> problem.
>
> In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
can be
> counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
alternate
> counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
>
> In haste,
> Richard Fobes
>
>
> On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
>> Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
>>
>> 1. May not elect majority candidate
>> In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the vote
>> currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
(<0.1%) and
>> over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices eliminated).
>> About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
possible
>> that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to
rank a
>> 4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect the
>> person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
>> probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
>>
>> 2. What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
asked if
>> RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
That’s
>> a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
with it.”
>> - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem in a
>> progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair. It
>> also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
>> democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
presents
>> herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that RCV
>> gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
candidates to be
>> more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken? Are
>> there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair? Thoughts?
>>
>> Regards,
>> —Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
>>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
>
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
--
Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director
Voter Choice Massachusetts
e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org mailto:greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org
p :: 617.863.0746 tel:617.863.0746
w :: voterchoicema.org http://voterchoicema.org/
:: Follow us on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/voterchoicema and Twitter
https://twitter.com/voterchoicema ::
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Thank you Brian for doing this. Looks like Leno is the legit winner and STV and Condorcet agree.
However, the Leno-Breed pair wise tally in the defeat matrix should be exactly the same as the STV final round result. So something is wrong somewhere.
But thanks for doing this. I was about to code up a MATLAB program to parse and count this thing.
--r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------- Original message --------
From: Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org>
Date: 6/10/2018 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: EM <election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
Ok, a few lines of Python poking the raw data shows I must have some bug in my Condorcet implementation. Digging into that...
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Greg Dennis <greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org> wrote:
Brian, how is it possible that those differ? Since all the other candidates are eliminated in the final round, shouldn't that necessarily be the same as the pairwise contest between those two?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 9:46 AM Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org> wrote:
I processed the latest data (2018-06-09) and posted the results of the SF Mayor election using a few algorithms:https://bolson.org/~bolson/2018/SF_Mayor_20180605.html
The Condorcet win is now 97436 to 91740 for Leno over Breed.The IRV final round is still just 94783 to 94393.
I'm using my software posted at https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil
commands (needs maven installed for compiling Java, and needs Python3):
curl -O http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_ballotimage.txtcurl -O http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_masterlookup.txt
(mkdir -p ~/psrc && cd ~/psrc && git clone https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil.git && cd ~/psrc/voteutil/java && mvn package)python3 ~/psrc/voteutil/python/rcvToNameEq.py -m 20180609_masterlookup.txt -b 20180609_ballotimage.txt -o 20180609_%s.nameqjava -jar ~/psrc/voteutil/java/target/voteutil-1.0.0.jar --rankings --full-html --explain -i 20180609_Mayor.nameq >/tmp/a.html
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Greg Dennis <greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org> wrote:
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough information to be sure of final results.
Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The "Ballot Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every individual ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you what each number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers, just ping me!
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:36 PM, VoteFair <electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
> San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-detailed-reports
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough information to be sure of final results.
Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be (probably is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
> The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
> exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
> conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
> case so far.
Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner -- is rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
> <rbj@audioimagination.com <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>> wrote:
> the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
> someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
> were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
> "disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
> choosing the mayor.
Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so ballots had this issue. Right?
That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as pairwise counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice" (or two choices in this case).
It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do not drink the FairVote kool-aid.
In haste,
Richard Fobes
"The VoteFair guy"
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-detailed-reports
Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the final
round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case so far.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj@audioimagination.com <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>> wrote:
Richard, a few points:
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
choosing the mayor. however, i think the news media made it clear
that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their *true* third
choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
champion"). it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the
Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another real
indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV. and your
reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and scanned
ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release
it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner
and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
L8r,
r b-j
> On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
> > ... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
> > a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
with it.”
> > - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
in a
> > progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
fair. ...
>
> This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP,
a.k.a
> plurality counting).
>
> There are other ways to count the preference marks on "ranked-choice"
> ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
> instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
>
> > 1. May not elect majority candidate
> > ...
> > Is this common? This is
> > probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
>
> I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had been
> able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
> simplistic, and complicates the counting.
>
> Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots. Unmarked
> choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked. And
> multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
also no
> problem.
>
> In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
can be
> counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
alternate
> counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
>
> In haste,
> Richard Fobes
>
>
> On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
>> Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
>>
>> 1. May not elect majority candidate
>> In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the vote
>> currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
(<0.1%) and
>> over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices eliminated).
>> About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
possible
>> that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to
rank a
>> 4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect the
>> person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
>> probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
>>
>> 2. What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
asked if
>> RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
That’s
>> a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
with it.”
>> - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem in a
>> progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair. It
>> also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
>> democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
presents
>> herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that RCV
>> gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
candidates to be
>> more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken? Are
>> there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair? Thoughts?
>>
>> Regards,
>> —Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
>>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
>
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
<mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
--
*Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director*
Voter Choice Massachusetts
e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org <mailto:greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org>
p :: 617.863.0746 <tel:617.863.0746>
w :: voterchoicema.org <http://voterchoicema.org/>
:: Follow us on Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/voterchoicema> and Twitter
<https://twitter.com/voterchoicema> ::
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
RB
robert bristow-johnson
Mon, Jun 11, 2018 5:42 AM
�
�
boy this is embarrassing.� i didn't realize they were still counting and that the lead has changed.� looks like London Breed is ahead and will likely win the STV contest.
and, from Brian's initial analysis, it doesn't look like the Condorcet Winner will
be different from the STV winner.� so no Burlington 2009 situation.
L8r,
r b-j
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
From: "robert bristow-johnson" rbj@audioimagination.com
Date: Sun, June 10, 2018 10:23 pm
To: "EM" election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Cc: "Brian Olson" bql@bolson.org
Thank you Brian for doing this.� Looks like Leno is the legit winner and STV and Condorcet agree.
However, the Leno-Breed pair wise tally in the defeat matrix should be exactly the same as the STV final round result.� So something is wrong somewhere.
But thanks for doing this.� I was about to code up a MATLAB program to parse and count this thing.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------- Original message --------
Date: 6/10/2018 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
Ok, a few lines of Python poking the raw data shows I must have some bug in my Condorcet implementation. Digging into that...
Brian, how is it possible that those differ? Since all the other candidates are eliminated in the final round, shouldn't that necessarily be the same as the pairwise contest between those two?
I processed the latest data (2018-06-09) and posted the results of the SF Mayor election using a few algorithms:https://bolson.org/~bolson/2018/SF_Mayor_20180605.html
The Condorcet win is now 97436�to 91740�for Leno over Breed.The IRV final round is still just�94783 to�94393.
I'm using my software posted at�https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil
commands (needs maven installed for compiling Java, and needs Python3):
(mkdir -p ~/psrc && cd ~/psrc && git clone https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil.git && cd ~/psrc/voteutil/java && mvn package)python3 ~/psrc/voteutil/python/rcvToNameEq.py -m 20180609_masterlookup.txt -b 20180609_ballotimage.txt -o 20180609_%s.nameqjava -jar
~/psrc/voteutil/java/target/voteutil-1.0.0.jar --rankings --full-html --explain -i 20180609_Mayor.nameq >/tmp/a.html
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough information to be sure of final results.
Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The "Ballot Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every individual ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you what each number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers,
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough information to be sure of final results.
Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be (probably is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner -- is rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
� � �the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem.� if
� � �someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
� � �were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
� � �"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so ballots had this issue.� Right?
That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as pairwise counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice" (or two choices in this case).
It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do not drink the FairVote kool-aid.
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the final
round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case so far.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
� � Richard, a few points:
� � the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem.� if
� � someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
� � were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
� � "disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
� � choosing the mayor.� however, i think the news media made it clear
� � that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
� � these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
� � Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their true third
� � choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
� � ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
� � that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
� � champion").� it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the
� � Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another real
� � indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV.� and your
� � reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
� � i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and scanned
� � ballots and the full ranking for each.� if so, and if they release
� � it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner
� � and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno.� this would be interesting.
� � > On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
� � > > ... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
� � > > a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
� � > > - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
� � > > progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
� � > This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP,
� � > plurality counting).
� � > There are other ways to count the preference marks on "ranked-choice"
� � > ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
� � > instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
� � > > 1. May not elect majority candidate
� � > > Is this common? This is
� � > > probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
� � > I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had been
� � > able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
� � > simplistic, and complicates the counting.
� � > Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots. Unmarked
� � > choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked. And
� � > multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
� � > In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
� � > counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
� � > counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
� � > On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
� � >> Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
� � >> 1. May not elect majority candidate
� � >> In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the vote
� � >> currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
� � >> over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices eliminated).
� � >> About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
� � >> that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to
� � >> 4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect the
� � >> person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
� � >> probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
� � >> 2. What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
� � >> RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
� � >> a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
� � >> - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem in a
� � >> progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair. It
� � >> also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
� � >> democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
� � >> herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that RCV
� � >> gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
� � >> more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken? Are
� � >> there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair? Thoughts?
� � "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director
Voter Choice Massachusetts
�
�
boy this is embarrassing.� i didn't realize they were still counting and that the lead has changed.� looks like London Breed is ahead and will likely win the STV contest.
and, from Brian's initial analysis, it doesn't look like the Condorcet Winner will
be different from the STV winner.� so no Burlington 2009 situation.
L8r,
r b-j
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
From: "robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com>
Date: Sun, June 10, 2018 10:23 pm
To: "EM" <election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
Cc: "Brian Olson" <bql@bolson.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Thank you Brian for doing this.� Looks like Leno is the legit winner and STV and Condorcet agree.
> However, the Leno-Breed pair wise tally in the defeat matrix should be exactly the same as the STV final round result.� So something is wrong somewhere.
> But thanks for doing this.� I was about to code up a MATLAB program to parse and count this thing.
>
> --r b-j� � � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
>
From: Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org>
> Date: 6/10/2018 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
> To: EM <election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
> Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
>
> Ok, a few lines of Python poking the raw data shows I must have some bug in my Condorcet implementation. Digging into that...
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Greg Dennis <greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org> wrote:
> Brian, how is it possible that those differ? Since all the other candidates are eliminated in the final round, shouldn't that necessarily be the same as the pairwise contest between those two?
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 9:46 AM Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org> wrote:
> I processed the latest data (2018-06-09) and posted the results of the SF Mayor election using a few algorithms:https://bolson.org/~bolson/2018/SF_Mayor_20180605.html
>
> The Condorcet win is now 97436�to 91740�for Leno over Breed.The IRV final round is still just�94783 to�94393.
>
> I'm using my software posted at�https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil
> commands (needs maven installed for compiling Java, and needs Python3):
> curl -O http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_ballotimage.txtcurl -O http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_masterlookup.txt
> (mkdir -p ~/psrc && cd ~/psrc && git clone https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil.git && cd ~/psrc/voteutil/java && mvn package)python3 ~/psrc/voteutil/python/rcvToNameEq.py -m 20180609_masterlookup.txt -b 20180609_ballotimage.txt -o 20180609_%s.nameqjava -jar
~/psrc/voteutil/java/target/voteutil-1.0.0.jar --rankings --full-html --explain -i 20180609_Mayor.nameq >/tmp/a.html
>
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Greg Dennis <greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org> wrote:
> I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough information to be sure of final results.
> Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The "Ballot Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every individual ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you what each number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers,
just ping me!
>
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:36 PM, VoteFair <electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
> On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
>
>> San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
>
>> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-detailed-reports
>
>
>
> I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough information to be sure of final results.
>
>
>
> Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be (probably is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
>
>
>
>> The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
>
>> exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
>
>> conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
>
>> case so far.
>
>
>
> Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner -- is rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
>
>
>
>> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
>
>> <rbj@audioimagination.com <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>> wrote:
>
>>� � �the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem.� if
>
>>� � �someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
>
>>� � �were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
>
>>� � �"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
>
>>� � �choosing the mayor.
>
>
>
> Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so ballots had this issue.� Right?
>
>
>
> That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as pairwise counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
>
>
>
> The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice" (or two choices in this case).
>
>
>
> It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do not drink the FairVote kool-aid.
>
>
>
> In haste,
>
> Richard Fobes
>
> "The VoteFair guy"
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
>
>
> San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
>
> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-detailed-reports
>
>
>
> Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
>
> indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the final
>
> round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
>
> probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
>
> exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
>
> conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case so far.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
>
> <rbj@audioimagination.com <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> � � Richard, a few points:
>
>
>
> � � the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem.� if
>
> � � someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
>
> � � were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
>
> � � "disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
>
> � � choosing the mayor.� however, i think the news media made it clear
>
> � � that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
>
> � � these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
>
> � � Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their *true* third
>
> � � choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
>
>
>
> � � ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
>
> � � that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
>
> � � champion").� it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the
>
> � � Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another real
>
> � � indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV.� and your
>
> � � reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
>
>
>
> � � i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and scanned
>
> � � ballots and the full ranking for each.� if so, and if they release
>
> � � it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner
>
> � � and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno.� this would be interesting.
>
>
>
> � � L8r,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> � � r b-j
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> � � > On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
>
> � � > > ... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
>
> � � > > a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
>
> � � with it.”
>
> � � > > - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
>
> � � in a
>
> � � > > progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
>
> � � fair. ...
>
> � � >
>
> � � > This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP,
>
> � � a.k.a
>
> � � > plurality counting).
>
> � � >
>
> � � > There are other ways to count the preference marks on "ranked-choice"
>
> � � > ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
>
> � � > instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
>
> � � >
>
> � � > > 1. May not elect majority candidate
>
> � � > > ...
>
> � � > > Is this common? This is
>
> � � > > probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
>
> � � >
>
> � � > I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had been
>
> � � > able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
>
> � � > simplistic, and complicates the counting.
>
> � � >
>
> � � > Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots. Unmarked
>
> � � > choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked. And
>
> � � > multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
>
> � � also no
>
> � � > problem.
>
> � � >
>
> � � > In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
>
> � � can be
>
> � � > counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
>
> � � alternate
>
> � � > counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
>
> � � >
>
> � � > In haste,
>
> � � > Richard Fobes
>
> � � >
>
> � � >
>
> � � > On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
>
> � � >> Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
>
> � � >>
>
> � � >> 1. May not elect majority candidate
>
> � � >> In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the vote
>
> � � >> currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
>
> � � (<0.1%) and
>
> � � >> over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices eliminated).
>
> � � >> About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
>
> � � possible
>
> � � >> that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to
>
> � � rank a
>
> � � >> 4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect the
>
> � � >> person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
>
> � � >> probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
>
> � � >>
>
> � � >> 2. What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
>
> � � asked if
>
> � � >> RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
>
> � � That’s
>
> � � >> a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
>
> � � with it.”
>
> � � >> - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem in a
>
> � � >> progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair. It
>
> � � >> also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
>
> � � >> democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
>
> � � presents
>
> � � >> herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that RCV
>
> � � >> gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
>
> � � candidates to be
>
> � � >> more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken? Are
>
> � � >> there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair? Thoughts?
>
> � � >>
>
> � � >> Regards,
>
> � � >> —Chris
>
> � � >>
>
> � � >>
>
> � � >>
>
> � � >> ----
>
> � � >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>
> � � list info
>
> � � >>
>
> � � > ----
>
> � � > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>
> � � list info
>
> � � >
>
>
>
> � � --
>
>
>
> � � r b-j� � � � � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com
>
> � � <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>
>
>
>
> � � "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> � � ----
>
> � � Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>
> � � list info
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director*
>
> Voter Choice Massachusetts
>
>
>
> e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org <mailto:greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org>
>
> p :: 617.863.0746 <tel:617.863.0746>
>
> w :: voterchoicema.org <http://voterchoicema.org/>
>
>
>
> :: Follow us on Facebook
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/voterchoicema> and Twitter
>
> <https://twitter.com/voterchoicema> ::
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
> ----
>
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
�
�
�
--
r b-j� � � � � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
�
�
�
�
CC
Christopher Colosi
Mon, Jun 11, 2018 3:45 PM
How is the ballot image file laid out? It seems like a horrible choice for
formatting. Is there any delimiter between ballots, or is this just one
gigantic string of numbers?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:42 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
boy this is embarrassing. i didn't realize they were still counting and
that the lead has changed. looks like London Breed is ahead and will
likely win the STV contest.
and, from Brian's initial analysis, it doesn't look like the Condorcet
Winner will be different from the STV winner. so no Burlington 2009
situation.
L8r,
r b-j
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
Thank you Brian for doing this. Looks like Leno is the legit winner and
However, the Leno-Breed pair wise tally in the defeat matrix should be
exactly the same as the STV final round result. So something is wrong
somewhere.
But thanks for doing this. I was about to code up a MATLAB program to
parse and count this thing.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------- Original message --------
Date: 6/10/2018 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
Ok, a few lines of Python poking the raw data shows I must have some bug
in my Condorcet implementation. Digging into that...
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Greg Dennis <
Brian, how is it possible that those differ? Since all the other
candidates are eliminated in the final round, shouldn't that necessarily be
the same as the pairwise contest between those two?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 9:46 AM Brian Olson bql@bolson.org wrote:
I processed the latest data (2018-06-09) and posted the results of the
The Condorcet win is now 97436 to 91740 for Leno over Breed.The IRV
final round is still just 94783 to 94393.
(mkdir -p ~/psrc && cd ~/psrc && git clone
https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil.git && cd ~/psrc/voteutil/java &&
mvn package)python3 ~/psrc/voteutil/python/rcvToNameEq.py -m
20180609_masterlookup.txt -b 20180609_ballotimage.txt -o
20180609_%s.nameqjava -jar ~/psrc/voteutil/java/target/voteutil-1.0.0.jar
--rankings --full-html --explain -i 20180609_Mayor.nameq >/tmp/a.html
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Greg Dennis <
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
information to be sure of final results.
Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The "Ballot
Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every individual
ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you what each
number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers, just ping me!
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
information to be sure of final results.
Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be (probably
is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner -- is
rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so ballots
That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as pairwise
counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting
cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice"
(or two choices in this case).
It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do not
drink the FairVote kool-aid.
In haste,
Richard Fobes
"The VoteFair guy"
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the final
round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case so
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj@audioimagination.com mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
Richard, a few points:
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
choosing the mayor. however, i think the news media made it clear
that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their *true* third
choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
champion"). it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the
Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another real
indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV. and your
reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and scanned
ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release
it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner
and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
L8r,
r b-j
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP,
There are other ways to count the preference marks on
ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
- May not elect majority candidate
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had
able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
simplistic, and complicates the counting.
Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots.
choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked.
multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
- May not elect majority candidate
In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the
currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices
About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to
4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect
person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
- What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair.
also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that
gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken?
there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair?
How is the ballot image file laid out? It seems like a horrible choice for
formatting. Is there any delimiter between ballots, or is this just one
gigantic string of numbers?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:42 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> boy this is embarrassing. i didn't realize they were still counting and
> that the lead has changed. looks like London Breed is ahead and will
> likely win the STV contest.
>
> and, from Brian's initial analysis, it doesn't look like the Condorcet
> Winner will be different from the STV winner. so no Burlington 2009
> situation.
>
> L8r,
>
> r b-j
>
>
>
> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
>
> From: "robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com>
> Date: Sun, June 10, 2018 10:23 pm
> To: "EM" <election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
> Cc: "Brian Olson" <bql@bolson.org>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you Brian for doing this. Looks like Leno is the legit winner and
> STV and Condorcet agree.
> > However, the Leno-Breed pair wise tally in the defeat matrix should be
> exactly the same as the STV final round result. So something is wrong
> somewhere.
> > But thanks for doing this. I was about to code up a MATLAB program to
> parse and count this thing.
> >
>
> > --r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>
>
> > "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
> >
> From: Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org>
> > Date: 6/10/2018 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
> > To: EM <election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
> > Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
> >
> > Ok, a few lines of Python poking the raw data shows I must have some bug
> in my Condorcet implementation. Digging into that...
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Greg Dennis <
> greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org> wrote:
> > Brian, how is it possible that those differ? Since all the other
> candidates are eliminated in the final round, shouldn't that necessarily be
> the same as the pairwise contest between those two?
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 9:46 AM Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org> wrote:
> > I processed the latest data (2018-06-09) and posted the results of the
> SF Mayor election using a few algorithms:
> https://bolson.org/~bolson/2018/SF_Mayor_20180605.html
> >
>
> > The Condorcet win is now 97436 to 91740 for Leno over Breed.The IRV
> final round is still just 94783 to 94393.
>
>
> >
> > I'm using my software posted at https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil
> > commands (needs maven installed for compiling Java, and needs Python3):
>
> > curl -O
> http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_ballotimage.txtcurl
> -O
> http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_masterlookup.txt
> > (mkdir -p ~/psrc && cd ~/psrc && git clone
> https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil.git && cd ~/psrc/voteutil/java &&
> mvn package)python3 ~/psrc/voteutil/python/rcvToNameEq.py -m
> 20180609_masterlookup.txt -b 20180609_ballotimage.txt -o
> 20180609_%s.nameqjava -jar ~/psrc/voteutil/java/target/voteutil-1.0.0.jar
> --rankings --full-html --explain -i 20180609_Mayor.nameq >/tmp/a.html
>
>
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Greg Dennis <
> greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org> wrote:
> > I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
> categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
> data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
> information to be sure of final results.
> > Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The "Ballot
> Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every individual
> ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you what each
> number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers, just ping me!
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:36 PM, VoteFair <electionmethods@votefair.org>
> wrote:
> > On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
> >
> >> San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
> >
> >>
> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-detailed-reports
> >
> >
> >
> > I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
> categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
> data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
> information to be sure of final results.
> >
> >
> >
> > Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be (probably
> is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
> >
> >
> >
> >> The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
> >
> >> exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
> >
> >> conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
> >
> >> case so far.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner -- is
> rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
> >
> >> <rbj@audioimagination.com <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
> >
> >> someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
> >
> >> were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
> >
> >> "disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
> >
> >> choosing the mayor.
> >
> >
> >
> > Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so ballots
> had this issue. Right?
> >
> >
> >
> > That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as pairwise
> counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
> >
> >
> >
> > The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting
> cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice"
> (or two choices in this case).
> >
> >
> >
> > It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do not
> drink the FairVote kool-aid.
> >
> >
> >
> > In haste,
> >
> > Richard Fobes
> >
> > "The VoteFair guy"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
> >
> >
> > San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
> >
> >
> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-detailed-reports
> >
> >
> >
> > Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
> >
> > indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the final
> >
> > round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
> >
> > probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
> >
> > exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
> >
> > conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case so
> far.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
> >
> > <rbj@audioimagination.com <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard, a few points:
> >
> >
> >
> > the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
> >
> > someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
> >
> > were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
> >
> > "disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
> >
> > choosing the mayor. however, i think the news media made it clear
> >
> > that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
> >
> > these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
> >
> > Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their *true* third
> >
> > choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
> >
> >
> >
> > ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
> >
> > that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
> >
> > champion"). it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the
> >
> > Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another real
> >
> > indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV. and your
> >
> > reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
> >
> >
> >
> > i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and scanned
> >
> > ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release
> >
> > it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner
> >
> > and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
> >
> >
> >
> > L8r,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > r b-j
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
> >
> > > > ... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
> >
> > > > a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
> >
> > with it.”
> >
> > > > - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
> >
> > in a
> >
> > > > progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
> >
> > fair. ...
> >
> > >
> >
> > > This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP,
> >
> > a.k.a
> >
> > > plurality counting).
> >
> > >
> >
> > > There are other ways to count the preference marks on
> "ranked-choice"
> >
> > > ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
> >
> > > instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > 1. May not elect majority candidate
> >
> > > > ...
> >
> > > > Is this common? This is
> >
> > > > probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had
> been
> >
> > > able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
> >
> > > simplistic, and complicates the counting.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots.
> Unmarked
> >
> > > choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked.
> And
> >
> > > multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
> >
> > also no
> >
> > > problem.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
> >
> > can be
> >
> > > counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
> >
> > alternate
> >
> > > counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > In haste,
> >
> > > Richard Fobes
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
> >
> > >> Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> 1. May not elect majority candidate
> >
> > >> In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the
> vote
> >
> > >> currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
> >
> > (<0.1%) and
> >
> > >> over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices
> eliminated).
> >
> > >> About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
> >
> > possible
> >
> > >> that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to
> >
> > rank a
> >
> > >> 4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect
> the
> >
> > >> person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
> >
> > >> probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> 2. What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
> >
> > asked if
> >
> > >> RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
> >
> > That’s
> >
> > >> a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
> >
> > with it.”
> >
> > >> - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
> in a
> >
> > >> progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair.
> It
> >
> > >> also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
> >
> > >> democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
> >
> > presents
> >
> > >> herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that
> RCV
> >
> > >> gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
> >
> > candidates to be
> >
> > >> more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken?
> Are
> >
> > >> there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair?
> Thoughts?
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Regards,
> >
> > >> —Chris
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> ----
> >
> > >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
> >
> > list info
> >
> > >>
> >
> > > ----
> >
> > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
> >
> > list info
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
> >
> > <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
> >
> > list info
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > *Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director*
> >
> > Voter Choice Massachusetts
> >
> >
> >
> > e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org <mailto:greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org
> >
> >
> > p :: 617.863.0746 <tel:617.863.0746>
> >
> > w :: voterchoicema.org <http://voterchoicema.org/>
> >
> >
> >
> > :: Follow us on Facebook
> >
> > <https://www.facebook.com/voterchoicema> and Twitter
> >
> > <https://twitter.com/voterchoicema> ::
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
> info
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
> info
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
> info
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
> info
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
> info
> >
>
> --
>
> r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
BO
Brian Olson
Mon, Jun 11, 2018 5:16 PM
How is the ballot image file laid out? It seems like a horrible choice
for formatting. Is there any delimiter between ballots, or is this just
one gigantic string of numbers?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:42 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
boy this is embarrassing. i didn't realize they were still counting and
that the lead has changed. looks like London Breed is ahead and will
likely win the STV contest.
and, from Brian's initial analysis, it doesn't look like the Condorcet
Winner will be different from the STV winner. so no Burlington 2009
situation.
L8r,
r b-j
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
Thank you Brian for doing this. Looks like Leno is the legit winner
and STV and Condorcet agree.
However, the Leno-Breed pair wise tally in the defeat matrix should be
exactly the same as the STV final round result. So something is wrong
somewhere.
But thanks for doing this. I was about to code up a MATLAB program to
parse and count this thing.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------- Original message --------
Date: 6/10/2018 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
Ok, a few lines of Python poking the raw data shows I must have some
bug in my Condorcet implementation. Digging into that...
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Greg Dennis <
Brian, how is it possible that those differ? Since all the other
candidates are eliminated in the final round, shouldn't that necessarily be
the same as the pairwise contest between those two?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 9:46 AM Brian Olson bql@bolson.org wrote:
I processed the latest data (2018-06-09) and posted the results of the
SF Mayor election using a few algorithms:https://bolson.org/
~bolson/2018/SF_Mayor_20180605.html
The Condorcet win is now 97436 to 91740 for Leno over Breed.The IRV
final round is still just 94783 to 94393.
(mkdir -p ~/psrc && cd ~/psrc && git clone
https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil.git && cd ~/psrc/voteutil/java &&
mvn package)python3 ~/psrc/voteutil/python/rcvToNameEq.py -m
20180609_masterlookup.txt -b 20180609_ballotimage.txt -o
20180609_%s.nameqjava -jar ~/psrc/voteutil/java/target/voteutil-1.0.0.jar
--rankings --full-html --explain -i 20180609_Mayor.nameq >/tmp/a.html
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Greg Dennis <
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
information to be sure of final results.
Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The
"Ballot Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every
individual ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you
what each number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers, just
ping me!
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
information to be sure of final results.
Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be
(probably is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner -- is
rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice
Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so ballots
That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as pairwise
counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting
cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice"
(or two choices in this case).
It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do not
drink the FairVote kool-aid.
Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the final
round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case so
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj@audioimagination.com mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
Richard, a few points:
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
choosing the mayor. however, i think the news media made it clear
that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their *true* third
choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
champion"). it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the
Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another real
indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV. and your
reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and scanned
ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release
it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner
and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
L8r,
r b-j
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP,
There are other ways to count the preference marks on
ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
- May not elect majority candidate
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had
able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
simplistic, and complicates the counting.
Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots.
choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked.
multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
- May not elect majority candidate
In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the
currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices
About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to
4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect
person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
- What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that
gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken?
there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair?
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
<mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
--
Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director
Voter Choice Massachusetts
e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org <mailto:greg.dennis@
I wrote Python code to parse the 'ballot image' and 'master lookup' files.
https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil/blob/master/python/rcvToNameEq.py
I have this exporting to www-cgi formatting like
Alice=1&Bob=2&Carol=3
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Christopher Colosi <colosi@gmail.com>
wrote:
> How is the ballot image file laid out? It seems like a horrible choice
> for formatting. Is there any delimiter between ballots, or is this just
> one gigantic string of numbers?
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:42 PM robert bristow-johnson <
> rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> boy this is embarrassing. i didn't realize they were still counting and
>> that the lead has changed. looks like London Breed is ahead and will
>> likely win the STV contest.
>>
>> and, from Brian's initial analysis, it doesn't look like the Condorcet
>> Winner will be different from the STV winner. so no Burlington 2009
>> situation.
>>
>> L8r,
>>
>> r b-j
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
>> Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
>>
>> From: "robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com>
>> Date: Sun, June 10, 2018 10:23 pm
>> To: "EM" <election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
>> Cc: "Brian Olson" <bql@bolson.org>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> --------------
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank you Brian for doing this. Looks like Leno is the legit winner
>> and STV and Condorcet agree.
>> > However, the Leno-Breed pair wise tally in the defeat matrix should be
>> exactly the same as the STV final round result. So something is wrong
>> somewhere.
>> > But thanks for doing this. I was about to code up a MATLAB program to
>> parse and count this thing.
>> >
>>
>> > --r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>>
>>
>> > "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -------- Original message --------
>> >
>> From: Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org>
>> > Date: 6/10/2018 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
>> > To: EM <election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
>> > Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
>> >
>> > Ok, a few lines of Python poking the raw data shows I must have some
>> bug in my Condorcet implementation. Digging into that...
>> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Greg Dennis <
>> greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org> wrote:
>> > Brian, how is it possible that those differ? Since all the other
>> candidates are eliminated in the final round, shouldn't that necessarily be
>> the same as the pairwise contest between those two?
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 9:46 AM Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org> wrote:
>> > I processed the latest data (2018-06-09) and posted the results of the
>> SF Mayor election using a few algorithms:https://bolson.org/
>> ~bolson/2018/SF_Mayor_20180605.html
>> >
>>
>> > The Condorcet win is now 97436 to 91740 for Leno over Breed.The IRV
>> final round is still just 94783 to 94393.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I'm using my software posted at https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil
>> > commands (needs maven installed for compiling Java, and needs Python3):
>>
>> > curl -O http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/
>> 20180609/20180609_ballotimage.txtcurl -O http://www.sfelections.org/
>> results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_masterlookup.txt
>> > (mkdir -p ~/psrc && cd ~/psrc && git clone
>> https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil.git && cd ~/psrc/voteutil/java &&
>> mvn package)python3 ~/psrc/voteutil/python/rcvToNameEq.py -m
>> 20180609_masterlookup.txt -b 20180609_ballotimage.txt -o
>> 20180609_%s.nameqjava -jar ~/psrc/voteutil/java/target/voteutil-1.0.0.jar
>> --rankings --full-html --explain -i 20180609_Mayor.nameq >/tmp/a.html
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Greg Dennis <
>> greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org> wrote:
>> > I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
>> categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
>> data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
>> information to be sure of final results.
>> > Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The
>> "Ballot Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every
>> individual ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you
>> what each number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers, just
>> ping me!
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:36 PM, VoteFair <electionmethods@votefair.org>
>> wrote:
>> > On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
>> >
>> >> San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
>> >
>> >> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-
>> detailed-reports
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
>> categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
>> data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
>> information to be sure of final results.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be
>> (probably is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
>> >
>> >> exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
>> >
>> >> conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
>> >
>> >> case so far.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner -- is
>> rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
>> >
>> >> <rbj@audioimagination.com <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
>> >
>> >> someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
>> >
>> >> were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
>> >
>> >> "disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice
>> of
>> >
>> >> choosing the mayor.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so ballots
>> had this issue. Right?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as pairwise
>> counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting
>> cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice"
>> (or two choices in this case).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do not
>> drink the FairVote kool-aid.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In haste,
>> >
>> > Richard Fobes
>> >
>> > "The VoteFair guy"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
>> >
>> > https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-
>> detailed-reports
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
>> >
>> > indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the final
>> >
>> > round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
>> >
>> > probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
>> >
>> > exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
>> >
>> > conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case so
>> far.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
>> >
>> > <rbj@audioimagination.com <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Richard, a few points:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
>> >
>> > someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
>> >
>> > were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
>> >
>> > "disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
>> >
>> > choosing the mayor. however, i think the news media made it clear
>> >
>> > that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
>> >
>> > these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
>> >
>> > Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their *true* third
>> >
>> > choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
>> >
>> > that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
>> >
>> > champion"). it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the
>> >
>> > Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another real
>> >
>> > indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV. and your
>> >
>> > reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and scanned
>> >
>> > ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release
>> >
>> > it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner
>> >
>> > and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > L8r,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > r b-j
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
>> >
>> > > > ... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
>> >
>> > > > a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
>> >
>> > with it.”
>> >
>> > > > - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
>> >
>> > in a
>> >
>> > > > progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
>> >
>> > fair. ...
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP,
>> >
>> > a.k.a
>> >
>> > > plurality counting).
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > There are other ways to count the preference marks on
>> "ranked-choice"
>> >
>> > > ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
>> >
>> > > instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > > 1. May not elect majority candidate
>> >
>> > > > ...
>> >
>> > > > Is this common? This is
>> >
>> > > > probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had
>> been
>> >
>> > > able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
>> >
>> > > simplistic, and complicates the counting.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots.
>> Unmarked
>> >
>> > > choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked.
>> And
>> >
>> > > multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
>> >
>> > also no
>> >
>> > > problem.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
>> >
>> > can be
>> >
>> > > counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
>> >
>> > alternate
>> >
>> > > counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > In haste,
>> >
>> > > Richard Fobes
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
>> >
>> > >> Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
>> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> > >> 1. May not elect majority candidate
>> >
>> > >> In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the
>> vote
>> >
>> > >> currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
>> >
>> > (<0.1%) and
>> >
>> > >> over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices
>> eliminated).
>> >
>> > >> About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
>> >
>> > possible
>> >
>> > >> that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to
>> >
>> > rank a
>> >
>> > >> 4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect
>> the
>> >
>> > >> person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
>> >
>> > >> probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
>> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> > >> 2. What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
>> >
>> > asked if
>> >
>> > >> RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
>> >
>> > That’s
>> >
>> > >> a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
>> >
>> > with it.”
>> >
>> > >> - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
>> in a
>> >
>> > >> progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
>> fair. It
>> >
>> > >> also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
>> >
>> > >> democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
>> >
>> > presents
>> >
>> > >> herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that
>> RCV
>> >
>> > >> gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
>> >
>> > candidates to be
>> >
>> > >> more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken?
>> Are
>> >
>> > >> there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair?
>> Thoughts?
>> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> > >> Regards,
>> >
>> > >> —Chris
>> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> > >> ----
>> >
>> > >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>> >
>> > list info
>> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> > > ----
>> >
>> > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>> >
>> > list info
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>> >
>> > <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----
>> >
>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>> >
>> > list info
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > *Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director*
>> >
>> > Voter Choice Massachusetts
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org <mailto:greg.dennis@
>> voterchoicema.org>
>> >
>> > p :: 617.863.0746 <tel:617.863.0746>
>> >
>> > w :: voterchoicema.org <http://voterchoicema.org/>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > :: Follow us on Facebook
>> >
>> > <https://www.facebook.com/voterchoicema> and Twitter
>> >
>> > <https://twitter.com/voterchoicema> ::
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----
>> >
>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----
>> >
>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>> >
>> >
>> > ----
>> >
>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----
>> >
>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>>
>> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
GD
Greg Dennis
Mon, Jun 11, 2018 5:21 PM
How is the ballot image file laid out? It seems like a horrible choice
for formatting. Is there any delimiter between ballots, or is this just
one gigantic string of numbers?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:42 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
boy this is embarrassing. i didn't realize they were still counting and
that the lead has changed. looks like London Breed is ahead and will
likely win the STV contest.
and, from Brian's initial analysis, it doesn't look like the Condorcet
Winner will be different from the STV winner. so no Burlington 2009
situation.
L8r,
r b-j
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
Thank you Brian for doing this. Looks like Leno is the legit winner
and STV and Condorcet agree.
However, the Leno-Breed pair wise tally in the defeat matrix should be
exactly the same as the STV final round result. So something is wrong
somewhere.
But thanks for doing this. I was about to code up a MATLAB program to
parse and count this thing.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------- Original message --------
Date: 6/10/2018 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
Ok, a few lines of Python poking the raw data shows I must have some
bug in my Condorcet implementation. Digging into that...
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Greg Dennis <
Brian, how is it possible that those differ? Since all the other
candidates are eliminated in the final round, shouldn't that necessarily be
the same as the pairwise contest between those two?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 9:46 AM Brian Olson bql@bolson.org wrote:
I processed the latest data (2018-06-09) and posted the results of the
SF Mayor election using a few algorithms:https://bolson.org/
~bolson/2018/SF_Mayor_20180605.html
The Condorcet win is now 97436 to 91740 for Leno over Breed.The IRV
final round is still just 94783 to 94393.
(mkdir -p ~/psrc && cd ~/psrc && git clone
https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil.git && cd ~/psrc/voteutil/java &&
mvn package)python3 ~/psrc/voteutil/python/rcvToNameEq.py -m
20180609_masterlookup.txt -b 20180609_ballotimage.txt -o
20180609_%s.nameqjava -jar ~/psrc/voteutil/java/target/voteutil-1.0.0.jar
--rankings --full-html --explain -i 20180609_Mayor.nameq >/tmp/a.html
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Greg Dennis <
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
information to be sure of final results.
Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The
"Ballot Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every
individual ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you
what each number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers, just
ping me!
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
information to be sure of final results.
Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be
(probably is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner -- is
rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice
Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so ballots
That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as pairwise
counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting
cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice"
(or two choices in this case).
It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do not
drink the FairVote kool-aid.
Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the final
round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case so
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj@audioimagination.com mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
Richard, a few points:
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
choosing the mayor. however, i think the news media made it clear
that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their *true* third
choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
champion"). it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the
Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another real
indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV. and your
reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and scanned
ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release
it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner
and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
L8r,
r b-j
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP,
There are other ways to count the preference marks on
ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
- May not elect majority candidate
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had
able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
simplistic, and complicates the counting.
Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots.
choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked.
multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
- May not elect majority candidate
In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the
currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices
About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to
4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect
person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
- What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that
gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken?
there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair?
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
<mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
--
Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director
Voter Choice Massachusetts
e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org <mailto:greg.dennis@
This document describes the layout:
http://www.acgov.org/rov/rcv/results/226/ballot_image_help.pdf
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Christopher Colosi <colosi@gmail.com>
wrote:
> How is the ballot image file laid out? It seems like a horrible choice
> for formatting. Is there any delimiter between ballots, or is this just
> one gigantic string of numbers?
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:42 PM robert bristow-johnson <
> rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> boy this is embarrassing. i didn't realize they were still counting and
>> that the lead has changed. looks like London Breed is ahead and will
>> likely win the STV contest.
>>
>> and, from Brian's initial analysis, it doesn't look like the Condorcet
>> Winner will be different from the STV winner. so no Burlington 2009
>> situation.
>>
>> L8r,
>>
>> r b-j
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
>> Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
>>
>> From: "robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com>
>> Date: Sun, June 10, 2018 10:23 pm
>> To: "EM" <election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
>> Cc: "Brian Olson" <bql@bolson.org>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> --------------
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank you Brian for doing this. Looks like Leno is the legit winner
>> and STV and Condorcet agree.
>> > However, the Leno-Breed pair wise tally in the defeat matrix should be
>> exactly the same as the STV final round result. So something is wrong
>> somewhere.
>> > But thanks for doing this. I was about to code up a MATLAB program to
>> parse and count this thing.
>> >
>>
>> > --r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>>
>>
>> > "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -------- Original message --------
>> >
>> From: Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org>
>> > Date: 6/10/2018 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
>> > To: EM <election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
>> > Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
>> >
>> > Ok, a few lines of Python poking the raw data shows I must have some
>> bug in my Condorcet implementation. Digging into that...
>> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Greg Dennis <
>> greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org> wrote:
>> > Brian, how is it possible that those differ? Since all the other
>> candidates are eliminated in the final round, shouldn't that necessarily be
>> the same as the pairwise contest between those two?
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 9:46 AM Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org> wrote:
>> > I processed the latest data (2018-06-09) and posted the results of the
>> SF Mayor election using a few algorithms:https://bolson.org/
>> ~bolson/2018/SF_Mayor_20180605.html
>> >
>>
>> > The Condorcet win is now 97436 to 91740 for Leno over Breed.The IRV
>> final round is still just 94783 to 94393.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I'm using my software posted at https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil
>> > commands (needs maven installed for compiling Java, and needs Python3):
>>
>> > curl -O http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/
>> 20180609/20180609_ballotimage.txtcurl -O http://www.sfelections.org/
>> results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_masterlookup.txt
>> > (mkdir -p ~/psrc && cd ~/psrc && git clone
>> https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil.git && cd ~/psrc/voteutil/java &&
>> mvn package)python3 ~/psrc/voteutil/python/rcvToNameEq.py -m
>> 20180609_masterlookup.txt -b 20180609_ballotimage.txt -o
>> 20180609_%s.nameqjava -jar ~/psrc/voteutil/java/target/voteutil-1.0.0.jar
>> --rankings --full-html --explain -i 20180609_Mayor.nameq >/tmp/a.html
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Greg Dennis <
>> greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org> wrote:
>> > I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
>> categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
>> data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
>> information to be sure of final results.
>> > Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The
>> "Ballot Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every
>> individual ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you
>> what each number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers, just
>> ping me!
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:36 PM, VoteFair <electionmethods@votefair.org>
>> wrote:
>> > On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
>> >
>> >> San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
>> >
>> >> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-
>> detailed-reports
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
>> categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
>> data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
>> information to be sure of final results.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be
>> (probably is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
>> >
>> >> exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
>> >
>> >> conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
>> >
>> >> case so far.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner -- is
>> rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
>> >
>> >> <rbj@audioimagination.com <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
>> >
>> >> someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
>> >
>> >> were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
>> >
>> >> "disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice
>> of
>> >
>> >> choosing the mayor.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so ballots
>> had this issue. Right?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as pairwise
>> counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting
>> cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice"
>> (or two choices in this case).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do not
>> drink the FairVote kool-aid.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In haste,
>> >
>> > Richard Fobes
>> >
>> > "The VoteFair guy"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
>> >
>> > https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-
>> detailed-reports
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
>> >
>> > indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the final
>> >
>> > round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
>> >
>> > probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
>> >
>> > exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
>> >
>> > conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case so
>> far.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
>> >
>> > <rbj@audioimagination.com <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Richard, a few points:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
>> >
>> > someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
>> >
>> > were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
>> >
>> > "disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
>> >
>> > choosing the mayor. however, i think the news media made it clear
>> >
>> > that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
>> >
>> > these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
>> >
>> > Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their *true* third
>> >
>> > choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
>> >
>> > that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
>> >
>> > champion"). it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the
>> >
>> > Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another real
>> >
>> > indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV. and your
>> >
>> > reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and scanned
>> >
>> > ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release
>> >
>> > it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner
>> >
>> > and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > L8r,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > r b-j
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
>> >
>> > > > ... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
>> >
>> > > > a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
>> >
>> > with it.”
>> >
>> > > > - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
>> >
>> > in a
>> >
>> > > > progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
>> >
>> > fair. ...
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP,
>> >
>> > a.k.a
>> >
>> > > plurality counting).
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > There are other ways to count the preference marks on
>> "ranked-choice"
>> >
>> > > ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
>> >
>> > > instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > > 1. May not elect majority candidate
>> >
>> > > > ...
>> >
>> > > > Is this common? This is
>> >
>> > > > probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had
>> been
>> >
>> > > able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
>> >
>> > > simplistic, and complicates the counting.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots.
>> Unmarked
>> >
>> > > choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked.
>> And
>> >
>> > > multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
>> >
>> > also no
>> >
>> > > problem.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
>> >
>> > can be
>> >
>> > > counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
>> >
>> > alternate
>> >
>> > > counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > In haste,
>> >
>> > > Richard Fobes
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
>> >
>> > >> Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
>> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> > >> 1. May not elect majority candidate
>> >
>> > >> In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the
>> vote
>> >
>> > >> currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
>> >
>> > (<0.1%) and
>> >
>> > >> over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices
>> eliminated).
>> >
>> > >> About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
>> >
>> > possible
>> >
>> > >> that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to
>> >
>> > rank a
>> >
>> > >> 4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect
>> the
>> >
>> > >> person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
>> >
>> > >> probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
>> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> > >> 2. What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
>> >
>> > asked if
>> >
>> > >> RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
>> >
>> > That’s
>> >
>> > >> a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
>> >
>> > with it.”
>> >
>> > >> - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
>> in a
>> >
>> > >> progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
>> fair. It
>> >
>> > >> also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
>> >
>> > >> democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
>> >
>> > presents
>> >
>> > >> herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that
>> RCV
>> >
>> > >> gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
>> >
>> > candidates to be
>> >
>> > >> more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken?
>> Are
>> >
>> > >> there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair?
>> Thoughts?
>> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> > >> Regards,
>> >
>> > >> —Chris
>> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> > >> ----
>> >
>> > >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>> >
>> > list info
>> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> > > ----
>> >
>> > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>> >
>> > list info
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>> >
>> > <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----
>> >
>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>> >
>> > list info
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > *Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director*
>> >
>> > Voter Choice Massachusetts
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org <mailto:greg.dennis@
>> voterchoicema.org>
>> >
>> > p :: 617.863.0746 <tel:617.863.0746>
>> >
>> > w :: voterchoicema.org <http://voterchoicema.org/>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > :: Follow us on Facebook
>> >
>> > <https://www.facebook.com/voterchoicema> and Twitter
>> >
>> > <https://twitter.com/voterchoicema> ::
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----
>> >
>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----
>> >
>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>> >
>> >
>> > ----
>> >
>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----
>> >
>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>>
>> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
CC
Christopher Colosi
Tue, Jun 12, 2018 1:47 AM
How is the ballot image file laid out? It seems like a horrible choice
for formatting. Is there any delimiter between ballots, or is this just
one gigantic string of numbers?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:42 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
boy this is embarrassing. i didn't realize they were still counting and
that the lead has changed. looks like London Breed is ahead and will
likely win the STV contest.
and, from Brian's initial analysis, it doesn't look like the Condorcet
Winner will be different from the STV winner. so no Burlington 2009
situation.
L8r,
r b-j
---------------------------- Original Message
Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
From: "robert bristow-johnson" rbj@audioimagination.com
Date: Sun, June 10, 2018 10:23 pm
To: "EM" election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Cc: "Brian Olson" bql@bolson.org
Thank you Brian for doing this. Looks like Leno is the legit winner
and STV and Condorcet agree.
However, the Leno-Breed pair wise tally in the defeat matrix should be
exactly the same as the STV final round result. So something is wrong
somewhere.
But thanks for doing this. I was about to code up a MATLAB program to
parse and count this thing.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------- Original message --------
Date: 6/10/2018 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
Ok, a few lines of Python poking the raw data shows I must have some
bug in my Condorcet implementation. Digging into that...
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Greg Dennis <
Brian, how is it possible that those differ? Since all the other
candidates are eliminated in the final round, shouldn't that necessarily be
the same as the pairwise contest between those two?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 9:46 AM Brian Olson bql@bolson.org wrote:
I processed the latest data (2018-06-09) and posted the results of the
The Condorcet win is now 97436 to 91740 for Leno over Breed.The IRV
final round is still just 94783 to 94393.
(mkdir -p ~/psrc && cd ~/psrc && git clone
https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil.git && cd ~/psrc/voteutil/java
&& mvn package)python3 ~/psrc/voteutil/python/rcvToNameEq.py -m
20180609_masterlookup.txt -b 20180609_ballotimage.txt -o
20180609_%s.nameqjava -jar ~/psrc/voteutil/java/target/voteutil-1.0.0.jar
--rankings --full-html --explain -i 20180609_Mayor.nameq >/tmp/a.html
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Greg Dennis <
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
information to be sure of final results.
Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The
"Ballot Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every
individual ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you
what each number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers, just
ping me!
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
information to be sure of final results.
Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be
(probably is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner -- is
rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice
Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so ballots
That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as
pairwise counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting
cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice"
(or two choices in this case).
It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do
not drink the FairVote kool-aid.
In haste,
Richard Fobes
"The VoteFair guy"
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the
round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj@audioimagination.com mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
Richard, a few points:
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice
choosing the mayor. however, i think the news media made it clear
that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their *true* third
choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
champion"). it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the
Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another
indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV. and
reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and
ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release
it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner
and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
L8r,
r b-j
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP,
There are other ways to count the preference marks on
ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead
instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
- May not elect majority candidate
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had
able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
simplistic, and complicates the counting.
Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots.
choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked.
multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
- May not elect majority candidate
In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the
currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices
About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity
4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t
person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
- What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that
gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken?
there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair?
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
<mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
--
Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director
Voter Choice Massachusetts
e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org <mailto:
Awesome, I’ll take a look at those. Thanks.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:21 AM Greg Dennis <greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org>
wrote:
> This document describes the layout:
> http://www.acgov.org/rov/rcv/results/226/ballot_image_help.pdf
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Christopher Colosi <colosi@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> How is the ballot image file laid out? It seems like a horrible choice
>> for formatting. Is there any delimiter between ballots, or is this just
>> one gigantic string of numbers?
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:42 PM robert bristow-johnson <
>> rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> boy this is embarrassing. i didn't realize they were still counting and
>>> that the lead has changed. looks like London Breed is ahead and will
>>> likely win the STV contest.
>>>
>>> and, from Brian's initial analysis, it doesn't look like the Condorcet
>>> Winner will be different from the STV winner. so no Burlington 2009
>>> situation.
>>>
>>> L8r,
>>>
>>> r b-j
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------- Original Message
>>> ----------------------------
>>> Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
>>>
>>> From: "robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com>
>>> Date: Sun, June 10, 2018 10:23 pm
>>> To: "EM" <election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
>>> Cc: "Brian Olson" <bql@bolson.org>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thank you Brian for doing this. Looks like Leno is the legit winner
>>> and STV and Condorcet agree.
>>> > However, the Leno-Breed pair wise tally in the defeat matrix should be
>>> exactly the same as the STV final round result. So something is wrong
>>> somewhere.
>>> > But thanks for doing this. I was about to code up a MATLAB program to
>>> parse and count this thing.
>>> >
>>>
>>> > --r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>>>
>>>
>>> > "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -------- Original message --------
>>> >
>>> From: Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org>
>>> > Date: 6/10/2018 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
>>> > To: EM <election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
>>> > Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
>>> >
>>> > Ok, a few lines of Python poking the raw data shows I must have some
>>> bug in my Condorcet implementation. Digging into that...
>>> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Greg Dennis <
>>> greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org> wrote:
>>> > Brian, how is it possible that those differ? Since all the other
>>> candidates are eliminated in the final round, shouldn't that necessarily be
>>> the same as the pairwise contest between those two?
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 9:46 AM Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org> wrote:
>>> > I processed the latest data (2018-06-09) and posted the results of the
>>> SF Mayor election using a few algorithms:
>>> https://bolson.org/~bolson/2018/SF_Mayor_20180605.html
>>> >
>>>
>>> > The Condorcet win is now 97436 to 91740 for Leno over Breed.The IRV
>>> final round is still just 94783 to 94393.
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > I'm using my software posted at https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil
>>> > commands (needs maven installed for compiling Java, and needs Python3):
>>>
>>> > curl -O
>>> http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_ballotimage.txtcurl
>>> -O
>>> http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_masterlookup.txt
>>> > (mkdir -p ~/psrc && cd ~/psrc && git clone
>>> https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil.git && cd ~/psrc/voteutil/java
>>> && mvn package)python3 ~/psrc/voteutil/python/rcvToNameEq.py -m
>>> 20180609_masterlookup.txt -b 20180609_ballotimage.txt -o
>>> 20180609_%s.nameqjava -jar ~/psrc/voteutil/java/target/voteutil-1.0.0.jar
>>> --rankings --full-html --explain -i 20180609_Mayor.nameq >/tmp/a.html
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Greg Dennis <
>>> greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org> wrote:
>>> > I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
>>> categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
>>> data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
>>> information to be sure of final results.
>>> > Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The
>>> "Ballot Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every
>>> individual ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you
>>> what each number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers, just
>>> ping me!
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:36 PM, VoteFair <electionmethods@votefair.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-detailed-reports
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
>>> categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
>>> data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
>>> information to be sure of final results.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be
>>> (probably is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
>>> >
>>> >> exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
>>> >
>>> >> conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
>>> >
>>> >> case so far.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner -- is
>>> rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
>>> >
>>> >> <rbj@audioimagination.com <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
>>> >
>>> >> someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
>>> >
>>> >> were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
>>> >
>>> >> "disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice
>>> of
>>> >
>>> >> choosing the mayor.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so ballots
>>> had this issue. Right?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as
>>> pairwise counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting
>>> cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice"
>>> (or two choices in this case).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do
>>> not drink the FairVote kool-aid.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > In haste,
>>> >
>>> > Richard Fobes
>>> >
>>> > "The VoteFair guy"
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-detailed-reports
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
>>> >
>>> > indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the
>>> final
>>> >
>>> > round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
>>> >
>>> > probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
>>> >
>>> > exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
>>> >
>>> > conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case
>>> so far.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
>>> >
>>> > <rbj@audioimagination.com <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Richard, a few points:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
>>> >
>>> > someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
>>> >
>>> > were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
>>> >
>>> > "disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice
>>> of
>>> >
>>> > choosing the mayor. however, i think the news media made it clear
>>> >
>>> > that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
>>> >
>>> > these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
>>> >
>>> > Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their *true* third
>>> >
>>> > choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
>>> >
>>> > that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
>>> >
>>> > champion"). it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the
>>> >
>>> > Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another
>>> real
>>> >
>>> > indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV. and
>>> your
>>> >
>>> > reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and
>>> scanned
>>> >
>>> > ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release
>>> >
>>> > it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner
>>> >
>>> > and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > L8r,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > r b-j
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > ... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
>>> >
>>> > > > a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
>>> >
>>> > with it.”
>>> >
>>> > > > - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a
>>> Dem
>>> >
>>> > in a
>>> >
>>> > > > progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
>>> >
>>> > fair. ...
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP,
>>> >
>>> > a.k.a
>>> >
>>> > > plurality counting).
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > There are other ways to count the preference marks on
>>> "ranked-choice"
>>> >
>>> > > ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead
>>> of
>>> >
>>> > > instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > > 1. May not elect majority candidate
>>> >
>>> > > > ...
>>> >
>>> > > > Is this common? This is
>>> >
>>> > > > probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had
>>> been
>>> >
>>> > > able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
>>> >
>>> > > simplistic, and complicates the counting.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots.
>>> Unmarked
>>> >
>>> > > choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked.
>>> And
>>> >
>>> > > multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
>>> >
>>> > also no
>>> >
>>> > > problem.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
>>> >
>>> > can be
>>> >
>>> > > counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
>>> >
>>> > alternate
>>> >
>>> > > counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > In haste,
>>> >
>>> > > Richard Fobes
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >> Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
>>> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > >> 1. May not elect majority candidate
>>> >
>>> > >> In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the
>>> vote
>>> >
>>> > >> currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
>>> >
>>> > (<0.1%) and
>>> >
>>> > >> over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices
>>> eliminated).
>>> >
>>> > >> About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
>>> >
>>> > possible
>>> >
>>> > >> that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity
>>> to
>>> >
>>> > rank a
>>> >
>>> > >> 4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t
>>> elect the
>>> >
>>> > >> person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This
>>> is
>>> >
>>> > >> probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
>>> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > >> 2. What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
>>> >
>>> > asked if
>>> >
>>> > >> RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
>>> >
>>> > That’s
>>> >
>>> > >> a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
>>> >
>>> > with it.”
>>> >
>>> > >> - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a
>>> Dem in a
>>> >
>>> > >> progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
>>> fair. It
>>> >
>>> > >> also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
>>> >
>>> > >> democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
>>> >
>>> > presents
>>> >
>>> > >> herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that
>>> RCV
>>> >
>>> > >> gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
>>> >
>>> > candidates to be
>>> >
>>> > >> more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken?
>>> Are
>>> >
>>> > >> there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair?
>>> Thoughts?
>>> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > >> Regards,
>>> >
>>> > >> —Chris
>>> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > >> ----
>>> >
>>> > >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em
>>> for
>>> >
>>> > list info
>>> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > > ----
>>> >
>>> > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>>> >
>>> > list info
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>>> >
>>> > <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----
>>> >
>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>>> >
>>> > list info
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > *Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director*
>>> >
>>> > Voter Choice Massachusetts
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org <mailto:
>>> greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org>
>>> >
>>> > p :: 617.863.0746 <tel:617.863.0746>
>>> >
>>> > w :: voterchoicema.org <http://voterchoicema.org/>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > :: Follow us on Facebook
>>> >
>>> > <https://www.facebook.com/voterchoicema> and Twitter
>>> >
>>> > <https://twitter.com/voterchoicema> ::
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----
>>> >
>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>>> info
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----
>>> >
>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>>> info
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----
>>> >
>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>>> info
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----
>>> >
>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>>> info
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----
>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>>> info
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>>>
>>> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>>> info
>>>
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
>
CC
Christopher Colosi
Wed, Jun 13, 2018 4:18 PM
Does the master ballot image separate day-of voting from mail-in ballots?
And does it further separate mail-in by arrival prior to election, drop off
at ballot locations, and arrival after election? It would be interesting
to see how much the vote varied by these groupings. Doesn’t look like that
info is in there unless it is the Tally Type field. I guess by comparing
the final report on the day of to the ultimate final report, we could split
early mail-ins and day-of from drop offs and late arrivals. Might be able
to further split early mail-ins from day-of if the first report is prior to
tallying of any day-of votes. Has anyone done this?
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:47 PM Christopher Colosi colosi@gmail.com wrote:
How is the ballot image file laid out? It seems like a horrible choice
for formatting. Is there any delimiter between ballots, or is this just
one gigantic string of numbers?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:42 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
boy this is embarrassing. i didn't realize they were still counting
and that the lead has changed. looks like London Breed is ahead and will
likely win the STV contest.
and, from Brian's initial analysis, it doesn't look like the Condorcet
Winner will be different from the STV winner. so no Burlington 2009
situation.
L8r,
r b-j
---------------------------- Original Message
Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
From: "robert bristow-johnson" rbj@audioimagination.com
Date: Sun, June 10, 2018 10:23 pm
To: "EM" election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Cc: "Brian Olson" bql@bolson.org
Thank you Brian for doing this. Looks like Leno is the legit winner
and STV and Condorcet agree.
However, the Leno-Breed pair wise tally in the defeat matrix should
be exactly the same as the STV final round result. So something is wrong
somewhere.
But thanks for doing this. I was about to code up a MATLAB program
to parse and count this thing.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------- Original message --------
Date: 6/10/2018 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
Ok, a few lines of Python poking the raw data shows I must have some
bug in my Condorcet implementation. Digging into that...
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Greg Dennis <
Brian, how is it possible that those differ? Since all the other
candidates are eliminated in the final round, shouldn't that necessarily be
the same as the pairwise contest between those two?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 9:46 AM Brian Olson bql@bolson.org wrote:
I processed the latest data (2018-06-09) and posted the results of
The Condorcet win is now 97436 to 91740 for Leno over Breed.The IRV
final round is still just 94783 to 94393.
I'm using my software posted at
commands (needs maven installed for compiling Java, and needs
(mkdir -p ~/psrc && cd ~/psrc && git clone
https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil.git && cd ~/psrc/voteutil/java
&& mvn package)python3 ~/psrc/voteutil/python/rcvToNameEq.py -m
20180609_masterlookup.txt -b 20180609_ballotimage.txt -o
20180609_%s.nameqjava -jar ~/psrc/voteutil/java/target/voteutil-1.0.0.jar
--rankings --full-html --explain -i 20180609_Mayor.nameq >/tmp/a.html
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Greg Dennis <
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
information to be sure of final results.
Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The
"Ballot Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every
individual ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you
what each number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers, just
ping me!
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:36 PM, VoteFair <
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
information to be sure of final results.
Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be
(probably is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner --
is rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final
Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so
ballots had this issue. Right?
That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as
pairwise counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting
cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice"
(or two choices in this case).
It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do
not drink the FairVote kool-aid.
In haste,
Richard Fobes
"The VoteFair guy"
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno
indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the
round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj@audioimagination.com mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
Richard, a few points:
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice
choosing the mayor. however, i think the news media made it clear
that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their *true* third
choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
champion"). it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is
Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another
indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV. and
reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and
ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release
it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet
and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
L8r,
r b-j
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
This remark does not imply support for first past the post
There are other ways to count the preference marks on
ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead
instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
- May not elect majority candidate
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they
able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
simplistic, and complicates the counting.
Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots.
choices are an indication that the choices are equally
multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
- May not elect majority candidate
In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As
currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices
About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity
4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t
person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
- What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding
gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I
there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair?
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
<mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
--
Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director
Voter Choice Massachusetts
e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org <mailto:
Does the master ballot image separate day-of voting from mail-in ballots?
And does it further separate mail-in by arrival prior to election, drop off
at ballot locations, and arrival after election? It would be interesting
to see how much the vote varied by these groupings. Doesn’t look like that
info is in there unless it is the Tally Type field. I guess by comparing
the final report on the day of to the ultimate final report, we could split
early mail-ins and day-of from drop offs and late arrivals. Might be able
to further split early mail-ins from day-of if the first report is prior to
tallying of any day-of votes. Has anyone done this?
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:47 PM Christopher Colosi <colosi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Awesome, I’ll take a look at those. Thanks.
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:21 AM Greg Dennis <
> greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org> wrote:
>
>> This document describes the layout:
>> http://www.acgov.org/rov/rcv/results/226/ballot_image_help.pdf
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Christopher Colosi <colosi@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> How is the ballot image file laid out? It seems like a horrible choice
>>> for formatting. Is there any delimiter between ballots, or is this just
>>> one gigantic string of numbers?
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:42 PM robert bristow-johnson <
>>> rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> boy this is embarrassing. i didn't realize they were still counting
>>>> and that the lead has changed. looks like London Breed is ahead and will
>>>> likely win the STV contest.
>>>>
>>>> and, from Brian's initial analysis, it doesn't look like the Condorcet
>>>> Winner will be different from the STV winner. so no Burlington 2009
>>>> situation.
>>>>
>>>> L8r,
>>>>
>>>> r b-j
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------- Original Message
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
>>>>
>>>> From: "robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com>
>>>> Date: Sun, June 10, 2018 10:23 pm
>>>> To: "EM" <election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
>>>> Cc: "Brian Olson" <bql@bolson.org>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Thank you Brian for doing this. Looks like Leno is the legit winner
>>>> and STV and Condorcet agree.
>>>> > However, the Leno-Breed pair wise tally in the defeat matrix should
>>>> be exactly the same as the STV final round result. So something is wrong
>>>> somewhere.
>>>> > But thanks for doing this. I was about to code up a MATLAB program
>>>> to parse and count this thing.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> > --r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > -------- Original message --------
>>>> >
>>>> From: Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org>
>>>> > Date: 6/10/2018 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
>>>> > To: EM <election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
>>>> > Subject: Re: [EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election
>>>> >
>>>> > Ok, a few lines of Python poking the raw data shows I must have some
>>>> bug in my Condorcet implementation. Digging into that...
>>>> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Greg Dennis <
>>>> greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org> wrote:
>>>> > Brian, how is it possible that those differ? Since all the other
>>>> candidates are eliminated in the final round, shouldn't that necessarily be
>>>> the same as the pairwise contest between those two?
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 9:46 AM Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org> wrote:
>>>> > I processed the latest data (2018-06-09) and posted the results of
>>>> the SF Mayor election using a few algorithms:
>>>> https://bolson.org/~bolson/2018/SF_Mayor_20180605.html
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> > The Condorcet win is now 97436 to 91740 for Leno over Breed.The IRV
>>>> final round is still just 94783 to 94393.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm using my software posted at
>>>> https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil
>>>> > commands (needs maven installed for compiling Java, and needs
>>>> Python3):
>>>>
>>>> > curl -O
>>>> http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_ballotimage.txtcurl
>>>> -O
>>>> http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_masterlookup.txt
>>>> > (mkdir -p ~/psrc && cd ~/psrc && git clone
>>>> https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil.git && cd ~/psrc/voteutil/java
>>>> && mvn package)python3 ~/psrc/voteutil/python/rcvToNameEq.py -m
>>>> 20180609_masterlookup.txt -b 20180609_ballotimage.txt -o
>>>> 20180609_%s.nameqjava -jar ~/psrc/voteutil/java/target/voteutil-1.0.0.jar
>>>> --rankings --full-html --explain -i 20180609_Mayor.nameq >/tmp/a.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Greg Dennis <
>>>> greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org> wrote:
>>>> > I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
>>>> categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
>>>> data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
>>>> information to be sure of final results.
>>>> > Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The
>>>> "Ballot Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every
>>>> individual ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you
>>>> what each number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers, just
>>>> ping me!
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:36 PM, VoteFair <
>>>> electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
>>>> > On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-detailed-reports
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
>>>> categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
>>>> data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
>>>> information to be sure of final results.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be
>>>> (probably is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
>>>> >
>>>> >> exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
>>>> >
>>>> >> conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
>>>> >
>>>> >> case so far.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner --
>>>> is rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
>>>> >
>>>> >> <rbj@audioimagination.com <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
>>>> >
>>>> >> someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
>>>> >
>>>> >> were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was
>>>> effectively
>>>> >
>>>> >> "disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final
>>>> choice of
>>>> >
>>>> >> choosing the mayor.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so
>>>> ballots had this issue. Right?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as
>>>> pairwise counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting
>>>> cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice"
>>>> (or two choices in this case).
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do
>>>> not drink the FairVote kool-aid.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > In haste,
>>>> >
>>>> > Richard Fobes
>>>> >
>>>> > "The VoteFair guy"
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-detailed-reports
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno
>>>> was
>>>> >
>>>> > indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the
>>>> final
>>>> >
>>>> > round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
>>>> >
>>>> > probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
>>>> >
>>>> > exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
>>>> >
>>>> > conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case
>>>> so far.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
>>>> >
>>>> > <rbj@audioimagination.com <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Richard, a few points:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
>>>> >
>>>> > someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
>>>> >
>>>> > were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
>>>> >
>>>> > "disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice
>>>> of
>>>> >
>>>> > choosing the mayor. however, i think the news media made it clear
>>>> >
>>>> > that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
>>>> >
>>>> > these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
>>>> >
>>>> > Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their *true* third
>>>> >
>>>> > choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
>>>> >
>>>> > that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
>>>> >
>>>> > champion"). it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is
>>>> the
>>>> >
>>>> > Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another
>>>> real
>>>> >
>>>> > indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV. and
>>>> your
>>>> >
>>>> > reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and
>>>> scanned
>>>> >
>>>> > ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release
>>>> >
>>>> > it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet
>>>> Winner
>>>> >
>>>> > and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > L8r,
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > r b-j
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > > On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > > ... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
>>>> >
>>>> > > > a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
>>>> >
>>>> > with it.”
>>>> >
>>>> > > > - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a
>>>> Dem
>>>> >
>>>> > in a
>>>> >
>>>> > > > progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
>>>> >
>>>> > fair. ...
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > > This remark does not imply support for first past the post
>>>> (FPTP,
>>>> >
>>>> > a.k.a
>>>> >
>>>> > > plurality counting).
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > > There are other ways to count the preference marks on
>>>> "ranked-choice"
>>>> >
>>>> > > ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead
>>>> of
>>>> >
>>>> > > instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > > > 1. May not elect majority candidate
>>>> >
>>>> > > > ...
>>>> >
>>>> > > > Is this common? This is
>>>> >
>>>> > > > probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > > I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they
>>>> had been
>>>> >
>>>> > > able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
>>>> >
>>>> > > simplistic, and complicates the counting.
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > > Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots.
>>>> Unmarked
>>>> >
>>>> > > choices are an indication that the choices are equally
>>>> disliked. And
>>>> >
>>>> > > multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
>>>> >
>>>> > also no
>>>> >
>>>> > > problem.
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > > In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
>>>> >
>>>> > can be
>>>> >
>>>> > > counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
>>>> >
>>>> > alternate
>>>> >
>>>> > > counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > > In haste,
>>>> >
>>>> > > Richard Fobes
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > > On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > >> Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
>>>> >
>>>> > >>
>>>> >
>>>> > >> 1. May not elect majority candidate
>>>> >
>>>> > >> In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As
>>>> the vote
>>>> >
>>>> > >> currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
>>>> >
>>>> > (<0.1%) and
>>>> >
>>>> > >> over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices
>>>> eliminated).
>>>> >
>>>> > >> About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
>>>> >
>>>> > possible
>>>> >
>>>> > >> that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity
>>>> to
>>>> >
>>>> > rank a
>>>> >
>>>> > >> 4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t
>>>> elect the
>>>> >
>>>> > >> person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This
>>>> is
>>>> >
>>>> > >> probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
>>>> >
>>>> > >>
>>>> >
>>>> > >> 2. What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
>>>> >
>>>> > asked if
>>>> >
>>>> > >> RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working
>>>> with.
>>>> >
>>>> > That’s
>>>> >
>>>> > >> a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
>>>> >
>>>> > with it.”
>>>> >
>>>> > >> - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a
>>>> Dem in a
>>>> >
>>>> > >> progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
>>>> fair. It
>>>> >
>>>> > >> also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
>>>> >
>>>> > >> democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
>>>> >
>>>> > presents
>>>> >
>>>> > >> herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding
>>>> that RCV
>>>> >
>>>> > >> gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
>>>> >
>>>> > candidates to be
>>>> >
>>>> > >> more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I
>>>> mistaken? Are
>>>> >
>>>> > >> there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair?
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> >
>>>> > >>
>>>> >
>>>> > >> Regards,
>>>> >
>>>> > >> —Chris
>>>> >
>>>> > >>
>>>> >
>>>> > >>
>>>> >
>>>> > >>
>>>> >
>>>> > >> ----
>>>> >
>>>> > >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em
>>>> for
>>>> >
>>>> > list info
>>>> >
>>>> > >>
>>>> >
>>>> > > ----
>>>> >
>>>> > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em
>>>> for
>>>> >
>>>> > list info
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>>>> >
>>>> > <mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ----
>>>> >
>>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>>>> >
>>>> > list info
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> > *Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director*
>>>> >
>>>> > Voter Choice Massachusetts
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org <mailto:
>>>> greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org>
>>>> >
>>>> > p :: 617.863.0746 <tel:617.863.0746>
>>>> >
>>>> > w :: voterchoicema.org <http://voterchoicema.org/>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > :: Follow us on Facebook
>>>> >
>>>> > <https://www.facebook.com/voterchoicema> and Twitter
>>>> >
>>>> > <https://twitter.com/voterchoicema> ::
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ----
>>>> >
>>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>>>> list info
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ----
>>>> >
>>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>>>> list info
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ----
>>>> >
>>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>>>> list info
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ----
>>>> >
>>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>>>> list info
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ----
>>>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>>>> list info
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>>>>
>>>> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>>>> info
>>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>>> info
>>>
>>
RL
Rob Lanphier
Sat, Jun 16, 2018 6:08 AM
Cool, you're obviously a lot further along than I am. I've got my own (as
yet unpublished) script for parsing out the ballot image files, but I don't
have my script doing any tallying yet.
I downloaded your voteutil code, ran rcvToNameEq against SF's report14
results, and then tried running that through countvotes.py, getting it to
cough up a matrix. I don't want to say yet who my output shows as having
won a particular pairwise contest after parsing report14 (124004 to
105292), but it's kinda interesting (and probably a sign I need to debug
something rather than finding something truly interesting).
Rob
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org> wrote:
> I wrote Python code to parse the 'ballot image' and 'master lookup' files.
> https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil/blob/master/python/rcvToNameEq.py
>
> I have this exporting to www-cgi formatting like
> Alice=1&Bob=2&Carol=3
>
Cool, you're obviously a lot further along than I am. I've got my own (as
yet unpublished) script for parsing out the ballot image files, but I don't
have my script doing any tallying yet.
I downloaded your voteutil code, ran rcvToNameEq against SF's report14
results, and then tried running that through countvotes.py, getting it to
cough up a matrix. I don't want to say yet who my output shows as having
won a particular pairwise contest after parsing report14 (124004 to
105292), but it's kinda interesting (and probably a sign I need to debug
something rather than finding something truly interesting).
Rob
RL
Rob Lanphier
Sun, Jun 17, 2018 9:30 PM
I'm still sorting through this. Rather than give up on my parsing script,
I decided to use it to create a parsing tool for parsing the sfgov.org
published results, which I just published as a standalone script
(sfballotparse.py):
https://gist.github.com/robla/7664d03372e6a80f1372869c09472b60
Now to nerd out just a little bit: Brian Olson's output format that he uses
(one urlencoded line per ballot-contest) can be condensed into a vaguely
readable form if piped through "sort | uniq -c". Which I did, then
published here:
https://gist.github.com/robla/b9e8df41d94a62d4190760eac044b3bc
I'm planning on using that as a means of manually checking the results when
I ran Brian's tool to get the pairwise count from the election.
I've tested my tool to create input for Brian's
voteutil/python/countvotes.py script. The results were very close, but not
identical; I haven't yet figured out if it's a bug in my code, or a bug in
his code, or sunspots, or what.
Rob
p.s. Brian, I would love it if you had the time to give my script a whirl,
but no worries if you don't. I'll eventually get around to filing a
bug/submitting-a-patch/whatever-is-appropriate
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 11:08 PM, Rob Lanphier robla@robla.net wrote:
Cool, you're obviously a lot further along than I am. I've got my own (as
yet unpublished) script for parsing out the ballot image files, but I don't
have my script doing any tallying yet.
I downloaded your voteutil code, ran rcvToNameEq against SF's report14
results, and then tried running that through countvotes.py, getting it to
cough up a matrix. I don't want to say yet who my output shows as having
won a particular pairwise contest after parsing report14 (124004 to
105292), but it's kinda interesting (and probably a sign I need to debug
something rather than finding something truly interesting).
Rob
I'm still sorting through this. Rather than give up on my parsing script,
I decided to use it to create a parsing tool for parsing the sfgov.org
published results, which I just published as a standalone script
(sfballotparse.py):
https://gist.github.com/robla/7664d03372e6a80f1372869c09472b60
Now to nerd out just a little bit: Brian Olson's output format that he uses
(one urlencoded line per ballot-contest) can be condensed into a vaguely
readable form if piped through "sort | uniq -c". Which I did, then
published here:
https://gist.github.com/robla/b9e8df41d94a62d4190760eac044b3bc
I'm planning on using that as a means of manually checking the results when
I ran Brian's tool to get the pairwise count from the election.
I've tested my tool to create input for Brian's
voteutil/python/countvotes.py script. The results were very close, but not
identical; I haven't yet figured out if it's a bug in my code, or a bug in
his code, or sunspots, or what.
Rob
p.s. Brian, I would love it if you had the time to give my script a whirl,
but no worries if you don't. I'll eventually get around to filing a
bug/submitting-a-patch/whatever-is-appropriate
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 11:08 PM, Rob Lanphier <robla@robla.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Brian Olson <bql@bolson.org> wrote:
>
>> I wrote Python code to parse the 'ballot image' and 'master lookup' files.
>> https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil/blob/master/python/rcvToNameEq.py
>>
>> I have this exporting to www-cgi formatting like
>> Alice=1&Bob=2&Carol=3
>>
>
>
> Cool, you're obviously a lot further along than I am. I've got my own (as
> yet unpublished) script for parsing out the ballot image files, but I don't
> have my script doing any tallying yet.
>
> I downloaded your voteutil code, ran rcvToNameEq against SF's report14
> results, and then tried running that through countvotes.py, getting it to
> cough up a matrix. I don't want to say yet who my output shows as having
> won a particular pairwise contest after parsing report14 (124004 to
> 105292), but it's kinda interesting (and probably a sign I need to debug
> something rather than finding something truly interesting).
>
> Rob
>
>
>
