MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
AERLO for MMPO:
For use with MMPO, it would be better if AERLO doesn't mention cycles at
all. It should just say:
A voter may specify a line in his/her ranking, to indicate that if no
above-line candidate wins, then s/he wants to promote all above-line
candidates to 1st place, and have a recount.
[end of MMPO AERLO definition]
Don't you just love Mike's diligent precision? Who else explicitly marks
the end of a one-paragraph, one-sentence definition?
Unfortunately, Mike's "precise" definition leaves several important
questions unanswered.
Exactly how do the promotions and recounts occur? Do we cycle through
the voters one by one and perform a recount for each one? If so, in what
order? Random? My guess is that we do it all at once in "batch" mode for
all the voters, though Mike left that little "detail" up in the air. But
what if the first recount changes the winner from one of my above-line
candidates to one below it. Do I get another recount? How many are
allowed? Do we continue until no voter has a winnerless list above his
AERLO? That may seem obvious to Mike, but it sure needs to be clarified
before the method ever sees the light of day.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't think AERLO is summable, which greatly
complicates public transparency and any guarantee of integrity. Mike
should be concerned about that, considering that he is absolutely
convinced that Bush's forces stole the 2004 election via tampering with
paperless voting machines.
A precise definition is more important than a precise [end of definition].
[end of message]
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
