@lime, yeah, you could. There is a little bit more risk that the workers in one precinct get tired and keep everyone waiting.

Maybe a useful policy would say conduct the election with computers and the Internet, let the result go into effect, then verify everything by hand. It might be easier to check a proposed outcome than to compute it from scratch.

The Essential set almost-always has 3 candidates, so the method can be made 3rd-order summable except when the election gets ridiculously close.

Maybe a useful policy would say conduct the election with computers and the Internet, let the result go into effect, then verify everything by hand. It might be easier to check a proposed outcome than to compute it from scratch.

@lime, but on the other hand, rescaling is not practical, because it would require reexamining the ballots. The people need precinct-summable systems to maintain security against fraud.

Can be done in two passes. The first pass identifies the Smith set, and then a second pass identifies the Score winner.

1. The sup norm (i.e. normalize ballots), or
2. The L2 norm/weight. This gives every voter an equal influence on the election, and also results in honest ratings if voters think all candidates in the Smith set will have similar scores (the zero-information setting).

Has anyone reduced the explanation of how to tally Smith // Score to JavaScript or detailed pseudocode?

Just find the Smith set (smallest set of candidates with no pairwise losses outside the set):
https://electowiki.org/wiki/Maximal_elements_algorithms