Raw voting data from itrug presentations. Proposals are numbered 1 to 12. Each line represents the preferences of a voter. Ties at any level are shown in parentheses. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th ---------------------------- 8 9 (11,7) 9 8 6 12 8 6 6 8 7 2 (3,9) 12 8 4 2 (3,9) 12 10 11 12 8 11 7 2 8 11 3 11 7 8 12 7 8 6 12 11 8 1 9 8 Summary voting data and ranks for various voting methods. The following table gives the number of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place votes for proposals numbered from 1 to 12, and also the total votes, and the sums under a 3211 Borda scheme. It then gives the (top 8) rank of the various proposals for various voting methods. R1 is using first place votes (First past the post scheme) Rtot is using the total votes (An approval scheme) R321 is using a 3211 Broda sum Run is using an instant runoff scheme. This had to be a bit modified since no winner except 8 (the first) ended up with a majority after previous winners had been eliminated due to the fact that we did not have a complete ordering. Panel is the result of the in-class panels Note that the Panel rated non-competitive one proposal (11) that was ranked higher by all the voting schmes except 1st place votes, and rated competitive one proposal (2) that was ranked low by all the voting schemes. Looking back at the proposals, it seems that the panel discounted a flashy presentation in one case, and accounted for a not-so-flashy presentation in the other. Prop 1st 2nd 3rd 4th tot 321 * R1 Rtot R321 Run Panel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 * 5-8 C (3-7) 2 1 1 1 0 3 6 * 5-8 7-8 8 8 C (3-7) 3 2 1 0 0 3 7 * 2-4 7-8 7 7 NC 4 0 1 0 0 1 2 * NC 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 * NC 6 1 0 6 1 8 10 * 5-8 2 4 6 HC (1-2) 7 1 1 3 0 5 8 * 5-8 5-6 5-6 5 C (3-7) 8 2 4 4 1 11 19 * 2-4 1 1 1 HC (1-2) 9 2 3 0 0 5 12 * 2-4 5-6 3 2 C (3-7) 10 0 0 1 0 1 1 * NC 11 0 2 2 2 6 8 * 3-4 5-6 4 NC 12 4 1 1 0 6 15 * 1 3-4 2 3 C (3-7)