Thursday, March 18, 2010

Groups of Five

Urbano dela Cruz suggested setting up groups of five instead of three as originally proposed. He feels increasing the group size from three to five will reduce the potential for organized groups to target selected candidates for defeat. This table shows the progress of such an arrangement, for comparison with the original table.






Level
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Electors
5,367,378
1,073,478
214,698
42,942
8,590
1,718
346
70
Selected
1,073,475
214,695
42,939
8,588
1,718
343
69
14
Unselected
4,293,903
858,783
171,759
34,354
6,872
1,375
277
56

In this example, after groups were assigned at each level, any remaining participants were carried to the next level as described in Devilish Details.

Fred

2 comments:

Taffd said...

I cannot, at first sight, see anything aginst groups of five and it would seem to negate the fears of Urbano.

The groups are still small enough to enable face-to-face meetings with little effort or expense.

In addition, groups of five reduces the number of levels in the process, speeding things up and possibly being cheaper.

I'd like to hear your take on this Fred.

Regards
Roy

koikaze said...

Thanks, Roy

I've copied your comment to (what I call) the "upper" level as "More on Groups of Five" and responded to it there.

I don't like to see thoughtful posts like yours buried as a comment. I'll be happy to add you and any other thoughtful posters as additional authors so they can always post at the "upper" level.

Fred