On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Jonathan Lundell <[email protected]> wrote:
> If technology-avoidance is your goal, to the point of counting by "ordinary > citizens", I don't know why you want to bring spreadsheets into the picture. Again you misconstrue my position. Like virtually all computer scientists who do not profit from selling or certifying computerized voting systems (and even some who do), I believe that there should be methods that average non-programming citizens can use to independently check the accuracy of vote counts. You on the other hand seem to desire to push for voting methods that would not allow ordinary citizens to check the accuracy of election results unless they hired a trusted computer programmer or unless a 100% hand count was done of every IRV/STV election and the ordinary citizens are allowed to and have time to observe. Again, I care much more about the public being able to have an understandable method of verifying the accuracy of election results than you do since you are promoting virtually the only voting method that makes it virtually impossible for an ordinary member of society to verify the accuracy of results. A complete Condorcet count by spreadsheet can fairly be called "trivial" in comparison to any IRV/STV method by using a simple NxN matrix where N is the number of candidates who run in the contest. > PR, including PR/STV, seeks to produce a body that is as fairly > representative of the electorate as possible, a goal at which plurality > at-large elections fail miserably. Yes, well the PR/STV counting method fails even more miserably at this goal of fair representation than does plurality, in ways that treat voters unequally and unfairly and do not allow a voter to even know how to vote to help his favorite or second favorite candidate have a better chance to win. > I'm more concerned that my vote actually contribute to the election of a > candidate. Well then certainly you must oppose IRV/STV methods since you can never be assured of that happening because IRV/STV fails that criteria in more than one way. -- Kathy Dopp The material expressed herein is the informed product of the author's fact-finding and investigative efforts. Dopp is a Mathematician, Expert in election audit mathematics and procedures; in exit poll discrepancy analysis; and can be reached at P.O. Box 680192 Park City, UT 84068 phone 435-658-4657 http://utahcountvotes.org http://electionmathematics.org http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/ Post-Election Vote Count Audit A Short Legislative & Administrative Proposal http://electionmathematics.org//ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/Vote-Count-Audit-Bill-2009.pdf History of Confidence Election Auditing Development & Overview of Election Auditing Fundamentals http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/History-of-Election-Auditing-Development.pdf Voters Have Reason to Worry http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
