Rob,
As I said, I am not responding to any more of your unsupported
internal chatter/attacks.
Instead here is interesting news coverage today by CBS news:
Voting Machine Doubts Linger - Concerns Over Vulnerability Of
Electronic Machines Sending Many States Back To Paper Ballots
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 16, 2008, at 12:54 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
I am for a record on disk of each ballot, but done in a maner to
not destroy secrecy.
You have to be very careful when doing so, because there are many
channels to secure. A vote-buyer might tell you to
Dave Ketchum wrote:
So you're saying that computers are better than specialized machines?
I'm not sure that's what you say (rather than that machines are better
than paper ballots), but I'll assume that.
Your specialized machines can each do a fragment of the task. However,
dependably
But murderers get away with murder, police are being bought
off by criminals, government employees steal office supplies. No one knows
exactly how much any of things happen. We try to limit them (balancing the
degree of the problem and the cost of addressing it), and we go on with our
lives.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Continuous elections could also increase the level of participation in
decision making in the sense that old votes could be valid for a long time
even if the voter wouldn't bother to change the vote often. Well, on the
other hand
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't know the details of these mechanisms but tickets seem to me like
add-ons that may have both good and bad effects. They do reduce the problems
of vote splitting due to short votes.
In Ireland, there are no 'how to vote' cards.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
Won't the people, as a last stop, keep fraud from being too blatant? You
don't need scientific methods to know that something's up if a state was
80-20 Democratic one cycle and then suddenly becomes 80-20 Republican (or
vice versa) the
Raph Frank Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 12:22 AM
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
I could see a kind of proxy front end to STV elections. I'm not sure
I'm convinced it would be a good idea, or even practical to implement,
but suppose that any person or group (including parties) could
Predictions based on that idea would consider the ideal to be direct
democracy. Next to that would be continuous update of representative
power (continuous elections). While both of these might work if we
were machines, the former scales badly and the latter would put an
undue load on the
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 7:34 PM, James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raph Frank Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 12:22 AM
I think a reasonable compromise is the system where a voter
picks a list and can override it. This could include a
system where any voter can register a list prior to
On Aug 17, 2008, at 11:34 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
The evidence from countries which presently have single-member
districts but are considering reform of the voting system, is that
electors want a balance between proportional representation of the
main political groups AND guaranteed local
On Aug 17, 2008, at 20:05 , Raph Frank wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't know the details of these mechanisms but tickets seem to me
like
add-ons that may have both good and bad effects. They do reduce
the problems
of vote splitting due to short
On Aug 17, 2008, at 19:44 , Raph Frank wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Continuous elections could also increase the level of
participation in
decision making in the sense that old votes could be valid for a
long time
even if the voter wouldn't bother
There could also be systems where the number of seats per district is
rather small but PR is counted at the top level. This means that you
can tweak the system to get a bit more locality and a bit more
political proportionality at the same time. (This of course has a
cost, e.g. making the
Juho Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:29 PM
On Aug 17, 2008, at 20:05 , Raph Frank wrote:
The problem for parties is that the surplus doesn't remain within the
party and leads to a vote management strategy. (If none of their
candidates have a large surplus, then they get to keep most
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 17, 2008, at 20:05 , Raph Frank wrote:
Voting the 'party ticket' in this context is just voting for all
candidates that your party puts forward before giving any
rankings to any other candidate.
It makes sense to me to
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any statistics from real STV-PR elections on how many votes (sum
of fragments) run out of candidates during the counting process?
The easiest way to see that is to look at how many votes are
remaing to the last count.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One could also complete short votes (at least by default) to something
longer (e.g. party preferences or just party as a whole) to get rid of this
problem.
That is another option, the Australians seem to be against the concept of
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There could also be systems where the number of seats per district is rather
small but PR is counted at the top level. This means that you can tweak the
system to get a bit more locality and a bit more political proportionality
at
Juho Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:29 PM
Maybe the interesting question is if voters mark sufficiently many
candidates so that their vote is not lost.
Are there any statistics from real STV-PR elections on how many votes
(sum of fragments) run out of candidates during the counting
20 matches
Mail list logo
