Stephen Bain wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Thomas Dalton<[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm inclined to agree. I just don't see any sufficient benefit to >> releasing the data to make it worth the risk. Why do people want this >> information? Is it just because they don't trust the vote count? > > Because they know in their hearts that the Schulze method is stupid, > and their heads just want to make sure.
Note that it's possible to run a number of different voting methods on the election just from the pairwise defeats matrix, which was released from the start. I can release results aggregated in a few other ways, if that would make people happier, especially if someone is prepared to write the code. Also, it's possible to set up a web page which lets you check if a given encrypted record (receipt) was included in the final count. From a vote-buying prevention perspective, we can't automatically confirm to the voter what the contents of that vote was, but we can do some random spot checks. The Schulze method is indeed non-ideal for a multi-winner election, I don't think anyone who understands the cloneproof property disputes that. Multi-winner elections should use a proportional method such as STV. Markus Schulze himself has been developing a multi-winner election method which combines STV with Condorcet winner concepts. But that's a discussion for the next election, what's done is done. -- Tim Starling _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
