Why unfair? The rules are published and people get to choose when
they vote. Cambridge is the home of Harvard and other institutions of
higher education, so the populace is certainly not all peons. I
believe there have been legal challenges to the system before which
failed.
The system is used for electing the city governing body. As I
understand it, usuing the usual definition of a quota of (V/n+1)+1
votes out of V to elect to one of n seats, among other things the
first quota of ballots cast for someone elected are considered
exhausted and additional later ballots for that candidate are
distributed to their 2nd or lower preference. To get the same effect
with order independence requires doing at least fixed point fractional
arithmetic if not floating point and is a lot more complex, although
apparently such complexities are performed routinely in preferential
elections in Australia.
Donald
(Not at lot to do with cryptography in this message, is there?)
From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:23:56 -0800
To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>"Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" wrote:
>
>> In Cambridge, Massachusetts, a preferential voting system is used
>> which is voting order depenent. This requires that all ballots be
>> numbered so that they can be processed in the same order on a recount
>> or else different results could occur because of the change in order.
>
>Even if this is used for local elections, it looks like an unfair voting
>system. Simply by delaying some voters, the results would vary.
>Further, election results should not depend on who votes first, or last,
>because not all can vote first -- or last.
>
>Moreover, I think the Supreme Court would find this system at odds with
>equal protection, don't you think so?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ed Gerck
