Unfortunately, there is no task that you can manually ask the voters to do, which won't lead to unacceptably high levels of spoiled ballots. My ballot doesn't count because I didn't vote against Wingnut Moonbat? Or because I didn't count up my approvals correctly? Once I failed to win a competition because I incorrectly counted and self-reported my score. Since it was a math competition, perhaps that was just. But voting is not a math competition; spoiled votes should be avoided.
So, you need some ballot integrity process which is separate from the voting system used. It could be automatic photos of the ballot; it could be machine-marked-voter-verified-paper-ballots; it could be some kind of transparent sticker or other surface treatment; it could be multiple custody throughout the ballot's lifetime (never let anyone alone with them); or many other things. Note that such a system is just as necessary for plurality, or approval with a requirement to vote against, or whatever. I can just as easily commit fraud by spoiling my opponents' votes as by adding votes for me. Jameson 2011/5/4 Dave Ketchum <[email protected]> > Agreed that the warning about "fraudprone" is valid. Rather than the > labor-intensive change I see below, I would simply require the voter to > indicate quantity of approvals. > > Dave Ketchum > > > On May 4, 2011, at 3:14 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote: > > 2011-05-04T05:48:15Z, “Matt Welland” <[email protected]>: >> >> I think it is within reach for us to change this bad situation but >>> we need the experts (you) to accept that the world isn't ready for the >>> perfect solution and drive hard for the most achievable and pragmatic >>> solution. Please consider getting behind Approval voting and to stop >>> confusing the politicians and public with complicated ideas. Repeat this >>> everywhere: Approval good, plurality bad, IRV worse. >>> >> >> I know that we must focus like a laser. I point out that plurality >> and IRV are bad. I advocate approval with a twist: >> >> The ballot like thus, is fraudprone: >> >> [ ] Candidate A >> [ ] Candidate B >> [ ] Candidate C >> [ ] Candidate D >> [ ] Candidate E >> [ ] Candidate F >> [ ] Candidate G >> [ ] Candidate H >> [ ] Candidate I >> [ ] Candidate J >> [ ] Candidate K >> [ ] Candidate L >> [ ] Candidate M >> [ ] Candidate N >> [ ] Candidate O >> [ ] Candidate P >> [ ] Candidate Q >> [ ] Candidate R >> [ ] Candidate S >> [ ] Candidate T >> [ ] Candidate U >> [ ] Candidate V >> [ ] Candidate W >> [ ] Candidate X >> [ ] Candidate Y >> [ ] Candidate Z >> >> >> Because a supporter of O can approval O after the ballots are cast >> on every ballot not already approving O. This is better: >> >> Instructions >> >> One must either approve [+] or reject [-] every candidate or the >> ballot is considered spoiled. >> >> [+] [-] Candidate A >> [+] [-] Candidate B >> [+] [-] Candidate C >> [+] [-] Candidate D >> [+] [-] Candidate E >> [+] [-] Candidate F >> [+] [-] Candidate G >> [+] [-] Candidate H >> [+] [-] Candidate I >> [+] [-] Candidate J >> [+] [-] Candidate K >> [+] [-] Candidate L >> [+] [-] Candidate M >> [+] [-] Candidate N >> [+] [-] Candidate O >> [+] [-] Candidate P >> [+] [-] Candidate Q >> [+] [-] Candidate R >> [+] [-] Candidate S >> [+] [-] Candidate T >> [+] [-] Candidate U >> [+] [-] Candidate V >> [+] [-] Candidate W >> [+] [-] Candidate X >> [+] [-] Candidate Y >> [+] [-] Candidate Z >> >> Now the ballots are resistant to manipulation after voting. This >> format is human/machine-readable. >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list >> info >> > > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
