i just want to settle the issue about how many piles one needs to be
"precinct summable" when there are N candidates.
Kathy was pointing to Abd ul as the qualified actor who "refuted" the
falsifiable assertion that i made that you needed only 9 piles for 3
candidates. She repeated labeled (without any justification other
than citing Abd ul's blather) the math that i clearly presented as
"illogical". Abd ul did nothing to support Kathy's assertion.
Kathy, fancying herself as an election security expert, continues to
try to taint IRV as being insecure because it's not "precinct
summable". and that is a demonstrably false claim.
i'll leave it to the experts here to judge who was trying to stay on
topic and who was decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio with
unnecessary text (with aim to distract from the core issue and to
denigrate the other side).
r b-j
On Jan 21, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
People, please. This is not a debate class, and even if it were,
"no, I won" is really useless even if true. Please take this
discussion off list, if you find it important enough not to stop.
There's practically no voting system content left. As for what is
left: we all know that the number of piles is large, that full
ballots can be transmitted, and we can work out the implications to
our own perhaps-incorrect satisfaction.
Respectfully to you both, but tired of this wordy debate,
Jameson
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
