Warren Smith wds at math.temple.edu wrote:
[The specified pattern] attack appears to be quite devastating to me.
I personally regard Rivest's scheme as therefore dead or anyway on the critical list,
for purpose of applying it to plurality voting. Rivest has a few lame attempts
to
To KPY:
I thought you had in mind, computer randomizes pattern and prints out the 3
ballot
plus 1 copy (it decides which).
That is a disaster since enables trivial vote buying using statistical effects.
If same, but YOU decide which to copy, then
the scheme still is vulnerable to statistical
That's true, this method would definitely require computers to generate
the ballots, which is a fairly significant flaw. I was mainly throwing out
ideas to see if someone would think of something clever and say, AHA! If
you just do it this way, people can easily cast a secure Condorcet vote
they
I think there are ways around this, or at least tricks that can make
the problems more manageable.
The particular trick I'm thinking at the moment is to allow the voter
to give her preference order to the voting machine in whatever nice
way. Then the voting machine proposes three ballots.
I posted it on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/
now back in action for plurality voting.
(And to reply Juho Laatu, the problem is, plurality votign really cannot be
split into cells because the cell-entries depend on one another -
with approval and range they can be split because they
