Jameson offers a couple very good points:
There are MANY ways to commit fraud.
MANY methods are susceptible, including Plurality.
Dave Ketchum
On May 4, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
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
