At 02:27 PM 07-05-2001 -0400, you wrote: >Mr. Schulze wrote in part- > >Due to Condorcet, when one "eliminates" a proposition of >an opinion then one still has an opinion. Therefore, it >is clear that "eliminating" can only mean "inverting". >--- >D- As usual, I must note that changing ballots is a major election felony in >most countries. Irrelevant for at least two reasons. First, it is a major election felony to physically change a legally cast ballot, or to falsely report the contents of a legally cast ballot. Neither of those things are happening here. What is being described is a procedure for tallying ballots cast to determine a winner, not a procedure for physically modifying the ballots themselves. Second, even if physical modifications of the ballots were necessary (which they are not), it is --highly- unlikely that a jurisdiction adopting this procedure would not also legislate an exception to the felony ballot tampering laws for people modifying the ballots in the manner prescribed by the election law. If they did not add such an exception, then every election conducted under those laws would be suspect because either a) the legally mandated procedure was not properly followed, or b) election officials feloniously tampered with the ballots. >Would Condorcet have been convicted of committing an election law felony ??? Nope, because if his procedure had been adopted, a) it wouldn't have required physical modification of the ballots, or falsification of the ballot tallies, and b) the law would have been on his side, because he would have been following legal election procedure. >Since Condorcet *relative* votes may produce a circular tie, then some other >tiebreaker should be used instead of *inverting* ANY votes. What tie breaker would you recommend? At least Condorcet was honest about the need to discount the wishes of a majority of the voters for the purposes of breaking the tie. >The standard example- > >34 ABC >33 BCA >32 CAB >99 > >66 A B 33 >67 B C 32 >65 C A 34 > >A whole lot of votes would need to be *inverted* --- circa one-third. Yup, and the vote would have been reported something like: ----------------- In the election of City Alderman for the 3rd district, 99 legal ballots were cast: 34: Anderson > Blake > Cleveland 33: Blake > Cleveland > Anderson 32: Cleveland > Anderson > Blake The original ballots and tally sheets will be available for public inspection in the office of the Board of Elections upon official certification of the election results. Official representatives of the candidates may inspect the ballots and tally sheets in the office of the Board of Elections immediately, and may file legal challenges to the ballots and ballot counts on or before November 30th. After all legal challenges to the ballots are concluded, the Chairman of the Board of Elections will certify the election no earlier than December 5th. Uncertified final results are: No candidate was preferred by a majority of ballots over all other candidates. Therefore, pursuant to City Public Election Law 104-3(f), a list of pairwise victories was compiled: 66:33 Anderson over Blake 67:32 Blake over Cleveland 65:34 Cleveland over Anderson and the pairwise victory with the smallest margin of victory (Cleveland over Anderson, 65:34) was inverted, yielding: 66:33 Anderson over Blake 67:32 Blake over Cleveland (34:65) Anderson over Cleveland) (*) *Note: Vote tallies in parenthesis (e.g: (34:65)) indicates that the victory was inverted. With the modified table of victories, Anderson defeats both Blake and Cleveland by majorites. Therefore, according to these uncertified election results, Anderson shall be the City Alderman for the 3rd district ------------------- Or some such. Please point out the election fraud in such a report. Later Buddha
