My comments are about computers and programs; not about this election method.
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:49:51 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Anthony O'Neal <thasupasacfitinman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
...
>
>>The sequential method is vulnerable to vote management and introduces
>>tactical voting into it.
>>
>
> The non-sequential method also suffers from tactical voting as I showed
> above
> (unless I made an error).
>
>
>>It's also more vulnerable than a computer total
>>simply because people can just lie about the votes their getting as
>>
> they're
>
>>hand-counting them.
>>
One possibility here is to have two people count a stack of ballots, each
counter not knowing who else counted the same stack. Having that as a
basic plan, the counters should try hard and actually double counting
every stack may not be worthwhile.
>
> Ok, we have a fundamental disagreement here. In a hand count there
> might
> be some small amount of fraud/error. However, to really rig an
> election,
> you need to get lots of counters involved. Also, those counters are
> observed. This makes it easier for there to be a small error but harder
> for their to be a massive error.
>
> A computer has a single point of failure (the program) and cannot be
> readily observed. Also, the general public doesn't really understand
> computers and those that do are often wary of using computers to do the
> tally.
>
Computers can fail.
However the way they are packaged makes it easier or harder for evil
operators to bias the results.
BUT, the program hopefully does what the programmer(s) told it to do:
Programmers can make mistakes. Any of these that get past testing
can affect results.
Communication between program and operators depends on their
understanding each other. This can fail.
Evil people can program, or hire others to program as they desire.
Most anything can happen, depending on the evil intent.
The horror stories about computers and elections demonstrate failure to
demand quality when procuring such.
Now look at ATMs and other uses of computers. Must be that more attention
gets paid to quality for such.
>
>>For computer methods, the complexity doesn't matter. It's just as
>>
> easy to
>
>>make a program that hurts candidates of one party in STV as it is in
>>
> PAV and
>
>>PRV. And, actually, the only way to do STV elections without a
>>
> randomness
>
>>is to use a computer.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
