On 4.10.2012, at 23.53, Michael Ossipoff wrote: >> I think you recommended Symmetrical ICT for informational polling. I guess >> you like and trust it within that framework. > > I like and trust Symmetrical ICT within every framework. > > In official public elections, I like and trust Symmetrical ICT. > > What I don't trust, in official public elections is the people who own > and operate the machines that do the machine balloting, and the > computerized counting. That's the "trust" reason why I don't propose > any rank-balloting method for official public elections.
We went through this already once. My opinion was that machine balloting can be avoided if needed. Computerized counting is not a problem if the (securely recorded) ballots are public, or if many parties can double-check the results. >>> We've agreed to disagree >>> about which one of us has more familiarity with and contact with >>> American voters. >> >> I disagree. :-) > > Do you mean that you disagree, in keeping with our agreement to > disagree, or do you mean that you don't agree that you agreed to > disagree. Wasn't it an agreement that we disagree? If it wasn't then I must disagree now. :-) > > If it is the latter, then do you disagree that you agree to disagree > because you agree? You are deviating to the actual content. I'm certain I'd disagree also without this disagreement. :-) > > If so, then you agree with me about which one of us has more > familiarity and contact with American voters. I think we already quite certainly agree to disagree. And that's an agreement that we can agree. :-) Juho ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
