On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Juho Laatu <juho4...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > 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.
Yes. > 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. As you said, we've already covered that topic. I refer you to my postings in the earlier discussion. So you want 150 million ballots to be "public". What, you mean copies of the electronic recording are made public? You have great faith in the honesty of the recording. ...the process between the voting and this 150 million-ballot record. As I said before, an Approval count can be publicly watched. Not just the making of an allegedly-honest electronic recording of rankings, but the actual final approval tallies in an Approval election, with marking-pen on paper. When the actual result can be arrived at, via simple tallying, in public, in the open, in front of observers from the various parties, and recorded and televised by cameras belonging to each party, Approval is incomparably, qualitatively, more fraud-secure than any Condorcet method could be. Mike Ossipoff ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info