On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 08:30:29 -0700 AllAbout Voting wrote:
Kathy Dopp wrote:
It seems to me that most of the persons on this list would rather have
votes fraudulently counted using some alternative voting scheme that
requires an unverifiable unauditable electronic voting system, than
accurately counted using the plurality election method.
Some have that attitude. I'm not one of them. I think that plurality is
a lousy voting method *and* that our current voting system is wide-open
to fraud. In my view both can and should be addressed. For the most
part the means of addressing them are orthogonal.
That said, voting methods that are not countable in precincts (eg. IRV)
pose a very large challenge to providing for election integrity. This,
in addition to other significant faults of IRV, causes me to oppose IRV..
I notice that some supporters of Condorcet voting (Dave Ketchum in
particular) directly argue that improving the plurality system should be
done even if it sacrifices election integrity.
Ouch - anyway I am for integrity and am certain it can be done without
Plurality - though i am with you as to opposing IRV,
So I will ask a pair of constructive questions:
1. Can Condorcet voting be compatible with precinct level optical scan
systems? (which many election integrity advocates consider to be
pretty good)
A Plurality ballot needs only one indicator as to which candidate is voted
for, plus candidate name for a write-in.
A Condorcet ballot has the same need for ability to handle a write-in name,
plus a rank number for each of the one or more candidates voted for.
DESIRABLE for the precinct to fill in and forward the NxN array as a
summary of all the ballots counted. If anything is forwarded as to
individual ballots, this is for verification purposes.
2. Can Condorcet voting be compatible with end-to-end verifiable
election integrity systems such as punchscan, 3-ballot, etc...?
My initial reaction is that the information for verification exists, but a
systems designed for other purposes might need modification to fit
Condorcet needs.
Note that any ballot acceptable by IRV rules fits in a subset of what
Condorcet permits. The counting being different makes Condorcet countable
in precincts.
I suspect that the answers to both questions is 'yes' which would make
Ketchum's dangerous arguments that software can be blindly trusted irrelevant.
That DOES NOT sound like a true description of what I have said,
Anyway, there certainly should be better verification of the software used
than some vendors have offered.
Further, I am sure optical scan involves computer programs with the same
questions as to trusting as for others.
-Greg Wolfe
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
