Re: [EM] IRV Monotonicity - precision

[Stéphane Rouillon]

Yes I do, and the no show paradox shows that
by staying home a voter can hope to get some more favourable outcome, 
but not any kind of.


Again if by doing so, there is a most favourable outcome, that most 
favourable outcome cannot be a first choice.
Staying home can help a second choice beat any least preferred choice, a 
third choice beat any least preferred choice and even a before
last choice beat a last choice, but it is impossible that staying home 
makes a first choice win when coming to vote for a first choice would not.


It might even be the only kind of monotonic behavior IRV has: if a 
voters goes to vote for a first preference instead of staying home,
it cannot harm the election of that first choice candidate. However, if 
a voters goes to vote for a first preference instead of voting
for a least preferred candidate, then it could harm the election of that 
first choice candidate.


Stéphane Rouillon.

Kathy Dopp a écrit :

Stephane,

 IRV also exhibits the "no show" paradox where staying home and not
voting will achieve a result that is more favorable for the voter than
voting at all.

Have you seen examples of the no show paradox?

Thanks for suggesting using more precision in my statements though.

Kathy

2009/3/18 Stéphane Rouillon :
  

You keep presenting this flaw in an incomplete way:

"with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first choice (instead of no
voting) could harm the candidate’s chance of winning..."
This statement is false.

"with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first choice (instead of
another of its preferred candidate) could harm the candidate’s chance of
winning..."
This is the statement that is right.

Without the details in parenthesis, your statement is vague.
If you want people to follow you, be clear.

Stephane Rouillon.

Kathy Dopp a écrit :


 The Minnesota Voters Alliance Welcomes Supreme Court Review


   The Minnesota Supreme Court issued an order yesterday,
March 17, 2009, for the accelerated briefing and review of the
Minnesota Voters Alliance appeal from the District Court’s decision
finding the City of Minneapolis’ Instant Runoff Voting system of
elections constitutional.



   The Minnesota Voters Alliance sought accelerated review,
as did the City, by-passing the Court of Appeals process because of
the lower court’s apparent failure to follow established Supreme Court
precedent — law that only the Supreme Court can affirm or reverse.



   Meanwhile, the Alliance is confident the Supreme Court
will find IRV unconstitutional and reverse the lower court’s
acceptance and declaration:



·that with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first
choice could harm the candidate’s chance of winning;



·that other voters will have more of their votes counted than
others;



·that in the election tabulation a vote can be fractioned,
thus allowing the court to conclude — for the first time ever in state
law — that there is no guarantee or protection that a voter’s vote is
to be counted as a numeric “one” whole vote;



·all of which do not violate the provisions of United States
and Minnesota Constitutions protecting the right to vote, equal
protection, or the principle of one-man, one-vote.



The State Supreme Court will likely announce the date of the hearing
shortly after the last brief is filed on April 17, 2009.



For more info, contact Andy Cilek 612.990.2533


  




  

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] IRV Monotonicity - precision

[Stéphane Rouillon]

You keep presenting this flaw in an incomplete way:

"with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first choice (instead of 
no voting) could harm the candidate’s chance of winning..."

This statement is false.

"with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first choice (instead of 
another of its preferred candidate) could harm the candidate’s chance of 
winning..."

This is the statement that is right.

Without the details in parenthesis, your statement is vague.
If you want people to follow you, be clear.

Stephane Rouillon.

Kathy Dopp a écrit :

  The Minnesota Voters Alliance Welcomes Supreme Court Review


The Minnesota Supreme Court issued an order yesterday,
March 17, 2009, for the accelerated briefing and review of the
Minnesota Voters Alliance appeal from the District Court’s decision
finding the City of Minneapolis’ Instant Runoff Voting system of
elections constitutional.



The Minnesota Voters Alliance sought accelerated review,
as did the City, by-passing the Court of Appeals process because of
the lower court’s apparent failure to follow established Supreme Court
precedent — law that only the Supreme Court can affirm or reverse.



Meanwhile, the Alliance is confident the Supreme Court
will find IRV unconstitutional and reverse the lower court’s
acceptance and declaration:



·that with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first
choice could harm the candidate’s chance of winning;



·that other voters will have more of their votes counted than others;



·that in the election tabulation a vote can be fractioned,
thus allowing the court to conclude — for the first time ever in state
law — that there is no guarantee or protection that a voter’s vote is
to be counted as a numeric “one” whole vote;



·all of which do not violate the provisions of United States
and Minnesota Constitutions protecting the right to vote, equal
protection, or the principle of one-man, one-vote.



The State Supreme Court will likely announce the date of the hearing
shortly after the last brief is filed on April 17, 2009.



For more info, contact Andy Cilek 612.990.2533

  


Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Minnesota Supreme Court Will Hear IRV Case

[Stéphane Rouillon]

I cannot believe there is still people believing that with an IRV system 
a voter who votes for his first

choice could harm the candidate’s chance of winning...

By the way Kathy, so how do you cool your house?

Kathy Dopp a écrit :

  The Minnesota Voters Alliance Welcomes Supreme Court Review


The Minnesota Supreme Court issued an order yesterday,
March 17, 2009, for the accelerated briefing and review of the
Minnesota Voters Alliance appeal from the District Court’s decision
finding the City of Minneapolis’ Instant Runoff Voting system of
elections constitutional.



The Minnesota Voters Alliance sought accelerated review,
as did the City, by-passing the Court of Appeals process because of
the lower court’s apparent failure to follow established Supreme Court
precedent — law that only the Supreme Court can affirm or reverse.



Meanwhile, the Alliance is confident the Supreme Court
will find IRV unconstitutional and reverse the lower court’s
acceptance and declaration:



·that with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first
choice could harm the candidate’s chance of winning;



·that other voters will have more of their votes counted than others;



·that in the election tabulation a vote can be fractioned,
thus allowing the court to conclude — for the first time ever in state
law — that there is no guarantee or protection that a voter’s vote is
to be counted as a numeric “one” whole vote;



·all of which do not violate the provisions of United States
and Minnesota Constitutions protecting the right to vote, equal
protection, or the principle of one-man, one-vote.



The State Supreme Court will likely announce the date of the hearing
shortly after the last brief is filed on April 17, 2009.



For more info, contact Andy Cilek 612.990.2533

  


Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] language/framing quibble

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Wed, 18/3/09, Fred Gohlke  wrote:

> Good Morning, Juho
> 
> I've been on the fence about whether or not it is
> appropriate for me to respond to your last message on this
> thread.  Since I'm aware you "... value many of the
> political systems of today higher than ..." I do, and since
> we've exchanged many thoughts over the past year, I fear
> anything I say may sound more like a harangue than a
> positive contribution.  I have no wish to be
> argumentative.  Still, after considering the matter,
> I've decided to offer two observations:
> 
> re: "... in many democracies people can influence the
> direction
>      of their country."
> 
> I do not believe that to be true.  As Dr. Alasdair
> MacIntyre of Notre Dame University (cited by Dr. Ted Clayton
> in 'The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy') said:
> 
>   "Politically the societies of advanced Western
> modernity
>    are oligarchies disguised as liberal
> democracies.  The large
>    majority of those who inhabit them are
> excluded from
>    membership in the elites that determine
> the range of
>    alternatives between which voters are
> permitted to choose.."

Ok, this may be just a question
on if the glass is half full or
half empty.  Our political systems
do have serious problems but on
the other hand we are somewhat
above "the laws of jungle".

> 
> 
> re: "Of course despite of this the systems have plenty of
> faults
>      and we should seek and implement
> improvements whenever we
>      can."
> 
> It is not possible to 'seek and implement improvements'
> until we itemize the faults.  We must identify them
> before we can correct them.

Yes.

>  To that end, we might
> consider starting with these:
> 
> * An oligarchic party structure that controls the choices
> made
>   available to the people.

Yes. I'd say that all large
structures have the tendency to
become oligarchic (that covers
e.g. companies, associations
and administrative structures
in addition to parties).

> 
> * Corruption, caused by the parties' need for funds to
> conduct
>   their operations, that leads to the selling of
> legislation to
>   benefit the donors rather than the public

Yes. I have referred to this
problem as the one-man-one-vote
v.s. one-dollar-one-vote problem.
Our democratic principles assume
the former but the practical
systems often have flaws that
allow the latter to take power.
Companies, labor unions and other
interest groups need to be heard
but not become the masters. Good
rules needed to avoid slipping
into bad tracks.

> (like the
> gutting and
>   eventual repeal of the Glass-Steagall Acts, enacted
> to protect
>   the public from the excesses of the financial
> industry; a
>   political act that so obviously led to the
> world-wide financial
>   chaos we now endure ... in your country as well as
> mine!)
> 
> * Incitement of passionate support rather than inspiring
>   thoughtful consideration of public concerns.

Yes. Some passion is maybe needed
and fruitful but I'd much rather
see the political field as a
discussion field than a battle
field. Maybe the corrective means
would include some very
traditional training in good
manners. In these matters
everyone should do his/her part
to get the whole society on the
right track.

> 
> * Defeating the checks and balances intended to prevent
> the
>   excessive accumulation of power.

I'm not sure if I got this point
but my understanding is that in
all systems people will find the
loopholes. We should keep the
system simple and clear, and we
should also enforce the rules
where necessary to minimize the
risk of major leaks.

> 
> If these are, as I see them, serious concerns, what
> specific improvements can we make to prevent their
> destructiveness?

Yes, these concerns are serious,
and we should make our political
systems less vulnerable to them.
New election methods as well as
other means should be used.

>  Practical Democracy addresses and
> forestalls each of these faults.  Other alternatives
> must exist.  What are they and how can we implement
> them?
> 
> Should I keep belaboring you with such questions?

I think there is a great need
for good analysis on these areas.
The solving of problems typically
starts from understanding them.

Here are some more random thoughts
that popped up when I read your
mail. I think many of these themes
cover not only parties but also
other large organizations.

- An organizational hierarchy
typically promotes people who
are eager to climb up

- An organizational hierarchy
typically promotes people who
are good at climbing up

- The Peter Principle


- Montesquieus separation of
powers could be extended to cover
also other areas like economy

I mentioned the laws of jungle
above. We can take that to mean
the bottom level, and see the
evolution of political systems
as steps up towards systems that
are better for its members. Many
tricks have been tried, and often
we have lost the path for a while,
but from thi

Re: [EM] IRV proponents figure out how to make IRV precinct-summable

[Raph Frank]

I uploaded the example ballot .pdf file that the code uses to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/temp_ballot.pdf

Also, some intermediate files from processing the image0001.pnp file.

This is after determining the alignment points:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/regen_plus.bmp

These are the images of each extracted box (after rescaling etc):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/small_0.bmp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/small_1.bmp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/small_2.bmp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/small_3.bmp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/small_4.bmp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/small_5.bmp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/small_6.bmp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/small_7.bmp

These are the same boxes after processing
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/short_0.bmp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/short_1.bmp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/short_2.bmp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/short_3.bmp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/short_4.bmp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/short_5.bmp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/short_6.bmp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/short_7.bmp

It gets 7 of the 8 correct.  The only error is the blank box (5).

The main thing, atm, that causes errors is the boxes themselves, as
the processing interprets them as part of the handwriting.  I think
that shouldn't be to hard to fix, but would require that the extracted
boxes are processed to find out exactly where their boundary lines
are.  Currently, it is open loop, it is assumed that the alignment
points are determined exactly.

With that, it could end up with 85%+ (at least with my handwriting :) ).

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] language/framing quibble

[Terry Bouricius]

Fred,

I suspect part of the differences are that you place such an overwhelming 
focus on political parties as the center of  control and corruption, while 
others may view parties as virtually appendages of more significant power 
centers (whether that be corporate wealth, unions, intellectual elites, or 
whoever). For example you quote A. MacIntyre to support your view...but I 
believe, as an anti-capitalist, he was writing about an oligarchy of 
wealth that narrowed the range of options voters were allowed to deal 
with, rather than political parties.

IF political parties in the U.S. were indeed the most powerful centers of 
control and corruption, your proposal to steer clear of party structures 
entirely might be interesting to more people. But I suspect many people 
see parties as merely pragmatic "super-structures" catering to the needs 
of the real oligarchs. I know plenty of party officials, and can assure 
you they are not "in control" of things.

Terry Bouricius


- Original Message - 
From: "Fred Gohlke" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] language/framing quibble


Good Morning, Juho

I've been on the fence about whether or not it is appropriate for me to
respond to your last message on this thread.  Since I'm aware you "...
value many of the political systems of today higher than ..." I do, and
since we've exchanged many thoughts over the past year, I fear anything
I say may sound more like a harangue than a positive contribution.  I
have no wish to be argumentative.  Still, after considering the matter,
I've decided to offer two observations:

re: "... in many democracies people can influence the direction
  of their country."

I do not believe that to be true.  As Dr. Alasdair MacIntyre of Notre
Dame University (cited by Dr. Ted Clayton in 'The Internet Encyclopedia
of Philosophy') said:

   "Politically the societies of advanced Western modernity
are oligarchies disguised as liberal democracies.  The large
majority of those who inhabit them are excluded from
membership in the elites that determine the range of
alternatives between which voters are permitted to choose."


re: "Of course despite of this the systems have plenty of faults
  and we should seek and implement improvements whenever we
  can."

It is not possible to 'seek and implement improvements' until we itemize
the faults.  We must identify them before we can correct them.  To that
end, we might consider starting with these:

* An oligarchic party structure that controls the choices made
   available to the people.

* Corruption, caused by the parties' need for funds to conduct
   their operations, that leads to the selling of legislation to
   benefit the donors rather than the public (like the gutting and
   eventual repeal of the Glass-Steagall Acts, enacted to protect
   the public from the excesses of the financial industry; a
   political act that so obviously led to the world-wide financial
   chaos we now endure ... in your country as well as mine!)

* Incitement of passionate support rather than inspiring
   thoughtful consideration of public concerns.

* Defeating the checks and balances intended to prevent the
   excessive accumulation of power.

If these are, as I see them, serious concerns, what specific
improvements can we make to prevent their destructiveness?  Practical
Democracy addresses and forestalls each of these faults.  Other
alternatives must exist.  What are they and how can we implement them?

Should I keep belaboring you with such questions?

Fred Gohlke

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info


Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Democracy

[Don & Cathy Hoffard]

Good morning Fred:

 >The hypothesized 75 year old (who happens to be 5 years my junior)
will 
 >advance as far as his (or her) desire and ability allow.  The decision

 >to accept or reject public office need not be, and, for those
interested 
 >in influencing the outcome, will not be, made until that decision is 
 >imminent.

 >Everyone remains involved in the process for as long as their desire
and 
 >ability allow.

 >Fred Gohlke

You use the term "desire and ability".

I believe that their involvement should ONLY be based on their "desire" to
participate in the selection (voting) and not in their "desire" to seek the
job.
I also believe that their involvement should not be based on his "ability"
to do the job.  What you are saying is "if you do not have the ability" to
do the job, based on the perception of others, then you can't participate in
the selection (voting) of the city manager. No one should have the ability
to take away your right to participate (you voting rights).

An individual may have the "desire" to participate in the selection of the
city manager but he/she is not allow to if he is not selected in earlier
rounds.  In a democracy everyone has a right to participate (if they wish)
in the selection of the city manager and in the Triad method someone else
can take that right away from them.  No one should have the ability the take
away your right to participate in the selection (vote).

The basic principle of democracy is that EVERYONE has the right to
participate in the selection and NO ONE has the right to say that you cannot
participate.

Don Hoffard




Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Juho

I've been on the fence about whether or not it is appropriate for me to 
respond to your last message on this thread.  Since I'm aware you "... 
value many of the political systems of today higher than ..." I do, and 
since we've exchanged many thoughts over the past year, I fear anything 
I say may sound more like a harangue than a positive contribution.  I 
have no wish to be argumentative.  Still, after considering the matter, 
I've decided to offer two observations:


re: "... in many democracies people can influence the direction
 of their country."

I do not believe that to be true.  As Dr. Alasdair MacIntyre of Notre 
Dame University (cited by Dr. Ted Clayton in 'The Internet Encyclopedia 
of Philosophy') said:


  "Politically the societies of advanced Western modernity
   are oligarchies disguised as liberal democracies.  The large
   majority of those who inhabit them are excluded from
   membership in the elites that determine the range of
   alternatives between which voters are permitted to choose."


re: "Of course despite of this the systems have plenty of faults
 and we should seek and implement improvements whenever we
 can."

It is not possible to 'seek and implement improvements' until we itemize 
the faults.  We must identify them before we can correct them.  To that 
end, we might consider starting with these:


* An oligarchic party structure that controls the choices made
  available to the people.

* Corruption, caused by the parties' need for funds to conduct
  their operations, that leads to the selling of legislation to
  benefit the donors rather than the public (like the gutting and
  eventual repeal of the Glass-Steagall Acts, enacted to protect
  the public from the excesses of the financial industry; a
  political act that so obviously led to the world-wide financial
  chaos we now endure ... in your country as well as mine!)

* Incitement of passionate support rather than inspiring
  thoughtful consideration of public concerns.

* Defeating the checks and balances intended to prevent the
  excessive accumulation of power.

If these are, as I see them, serious concerns, what specific 
improvements can we make to prevent their destructiveness?  Practical 
Democracy addresses and forestalls each of these faults.  Other 
alternatives must exist.  What are they and how can we implement them?


Should I keep belaboring you with such questions?

Fred Gohlke

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

[EM] Minnesota Supreme Court Will Hear IRV Case

[Kathy Dopp]

  The Minnesota Voters Alliance Welcomes Supreme Court Review


The Minnesota Supreme Court issued an order yesterday,
March 17, 2009, for the accelerated briefing and review of the
Minnesota Voters Alliance appeal from the District Court’s decision
finding the City of Minneapolis’ Instant Runoff Voting system of
elections constitutional.



The Minnesota Voters Alliance sought accelerated review,
as did the City, by-passing the Court of Appeals process because of
the lower court’s apparent failure to follow established Supreme Court
precedent — law that only the Supreme Court can affirm or reverse.



Meanwhile, the Alliance is confident the Supreme Court
will find IRV unconstitutional and reverse the lower court’s
acceptance and declaration:



·that with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first
choice could harm the candidate’s chance of winning;



·that other voters will have more of their votes counted than others;



·that in the election tabulation a vote can be fractioned,
thus allowing the court to conclude — for the first time ever in state
law — that there is no guarantee or protection that a voter’s vote is
to be counted as a numeric “one” whole vote;



·all of which do not violate the provisions of United States
and Minnesota Constitutions protecting the right to vote, equal
protection, or the principle of one-man, one-vote.



The State Supreme Court will likely announce the date of the hearing
shortly after the last brief is filed on April 17, 2009.



For more info, contact Andy Cilek 612.990.2533

-- 

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

Re: [EM] IRV proponents figure out how to make IRV precinct-summable

[James Gilmour]

Raph Frank > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:54 PM
> > 2009/3/18 James Gilmour :
> > I'm afraid you have misunderstood (or maybe I didn't explain it 
> > clearly).  It is not a software issue  -  it is a compliance issue. No 
> > matter what software you use to "read" the images, the Returning 
> > Officers will always have to decide the level of compliance for 
> > automatic acceptance.
> 
> By compliance, do you mean the confidence level that the 
> software outputs?

I do not know how the DRS software works, so I cannot answer the question as 
asked.  But as I understand, some form of "intelligent"
OCR is used to "read" the image to produce the vote vector for each ballot 
paper.  The system can be set to accept or reject various
forms of the "same" vote mark.  This is, for example, an unbelievably large 
number of ways of marking a "1" in a square in the
voting column!!  What angle away from vertical is acceptable?  What degree of 
curl in the pencil stroke is acceptable?  Does it have
an up-stroke so that it might confused with a "7"? etc, etc, etc.  You have to 
see the images (hundreds of them) to appreciate the
variation in what is actually done by voters.  For the 2007 elections, an image 
was queued for evaluation if even the tiniest part
of a vote mark ("X" or a number, depending on the election)  went over the 
border into the next box.  Also queued for evaluation
were all ballot papers that had ANY additional marks at all anywhere on the 
face of the paper.

As I understand it, there are settable parameters in the system that could be 
set to accept or reject all of the variations
described above, and many more.  The compliance requirements were set high 
because when I and many others looked at the symbol
images queued for evaluation, we said it was obvious which most of them were.  
But they had been queued because, in some way, they
did not comply with the parameters set and agreed by the Returning Officers.


> Multiple independent images, processed by different people 
> help with this issue.  You would only need to check ballots 
> where there is disagreement.

I am not sure what you meant here, but if there was any disagreement about the 
"symbol correction" at the evaluation stage, the
image was queued for adjudication by a Returning Officer.  There were 
comparatively few queued for that reason.  But there were very
large numbers queued for adjudication for other reasons, so that the candidates 
and their agents would be happy with the decisions.

The system used in 2007 was non-heuristic, but there was a heuristic version 
available that would "learn" from the "symbol
corrections" at the evaluation stage and so progressively queue fewer and fewer 
images for evaluation.  But that would have been a
"black box" step too far, at least on that occasion which was the first time 
any of the countries in the UK had used electronic
counting for ALL its elections.

James

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.18/2008 - Release Date: 03/17/09 
16:25:00



Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] IRV proponents figure out how to make IRV precinct-summable

[Raph Frank]

2009/3/18 James Gilmour :
> Raph Frank > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 3:20 PM
>> Well, as the software improves, this would be less of a
>> problem.
>
> I'm afraid you have misunderstood (or maybe I didn't explain it clearly).  It 
> is not a software issue  -  it is a compliance issue.
> No matter what software you use to "read" the images, the Returning Officers 
> will always have to decide the level of compliance for
> automatic acceptance.

By compliance, do you mean the confidence level that the software outputs?

Multiple independent images, processed by different people help with
this issue.  You would only need to check ballots where there is
disagreement.

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] IRV proponents figure out how to make IRV precinct-summable

[James Gilmour]

Raph Frank > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 3:20 PM
> Well, as the software improves, this would be less of a 
> problem. 

I'm afraid you have misunderstood (or maybe I didn't explain it clearly).  It 
is not a software issue  -  it is a compliance issue.
No matter what software you use to "read" the images, the Returning Officers 
will always have to decide the level of compliance for
automatic acceptance.  Many more ballot paper images could be processed 
completely automatically if the compliance level were
reduced, even a little.  But such is the distrust of "black boxes" that the ROs 
in Scotland asked for the compliance levels to be
set quite high.  Hence the "symbol correction" queue.  The "adjudication queue" 
is quite separate and will always exist.


> Also, I think one of the issues in Scotland was poor 
> ballot design which overloaded the ballot. 

There's lots I could write about this, but I don't have time right now.  The 
real problem was with the MMP elections.  The large
processing queues and delays resulted from the need for adjudication on 
anything that did not conform, including a ballot sheet with
only one vote recorded on it instead of the expected two.

If you want to know more about this, see:   
  Rejected Ballot Papers in the Scottish Elections 2007 
  http://www.epop07.com/papers/Gilmour-Pre-Conf-Paper-31Aug07.pdf


> A better layout 
> might have been two separate ballots for each person, so it 
> is obvious that they are separate.

Separate ballot papers were used for the two MMP votes in the elections in 1999 
and 2003.  The combined ballot sheet (following New
Zealand) was introduced in 2007 to address some very large problems in voter 
understanding of how MMP really works.  For more on
that, see the report of the Arbuthnott Commission:   
  
http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/files/Final%20version%20of%20report.pdf



> Abd's proposal is that lots of people would take images of 
> the ballots and each ballot would have an ID number added 
> (after it is taken out of the ballot box) for easy reference.

All ballot papers in the UK have a unique number printed on the back.  For 
electronic processing, they also have a unique barcode on
the back that goes with the scanned image.  The system is designed, both paper 
and electronic, so that no-one can see, at the same
time, both the face and reverse of a ballot paper or an image of a ballot 
paper.  You need a Court Order for authority to look at
both the face and reverse of the ballot papers, and that will be granted only 
in cases where there is good evidence for fraud to be
suspected.

James Gilmour


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.18/2008 - Release Date: 03/17/09 
16:25:00



Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Democracy

[Michael Allan]

Fred Gohlke wrote:

> ... Among other things, [Don] hypothesized ...
>
> "A retired worker 75 year old who ... is not interested in
>  being the city manager.  He would thus not want the other
>  two to vote for him.  By not being selected to advance to
>  the second round he has lost his right to vote."
>
> and, from that, projected ...
>
> "Thus the Triad method violates one of the most fundamental
>  principles of democracy."
> ...
>
> Rather than violating one of the most fundamental principles of democracy, 
> the Practical Democracy concept enhances that principle in a way, and to an 
> extent, that is not possible in partisan systems: Everyone remains involved 
> in the process for as long as their desire and ability allow.

I think Don would rather the voter remain involved for as long as his
desire *or* ability allows.  So he would choose to remain himself, in
order to participate as a voter; or he would be chosen by others, in
order to participate as a candidate.  Either way, he would still be
involved.

Maybe his involvement would give him the right, at least, to withdraw
his vote from subsequent rounds.  He might then explicitly dissent
from the outcome, if it proved to be unacceptable.  (Otherwise, as it
stands, his assent is taken for granted.)  Would this change be more
democratic?

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/


Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] IRV proponents figure out how to make IRV precinct-summable

[Terry Bouricius]

Indeed, pixel scanning voting technology that captures complete ballot 
images that can be interpreted using standard form-reading software allows 
for ANY improved voting method AND increases election integrity by having 
a redundant paper and machine record of every vote (making fraud extremely 
difficult, since TWO records would need to be falsified). And this is not 
a wish for the future, but happening right now. Several current election 
administration companies (mainly running union elections) use such a 
system currently, and at least one voting machine vendor (Avante, which 
just won a huge contract to supply voting machines to the Philippines) has 
such a system already federally tested in the U.S.

Terry Bouricius
- Original Message - 
From: "Raph Frank" 
To: "Kristofer Munsterhjelm" 
Cc: "Dave Ketchum" ; "EM" 

Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] IRV proponents figure out how to make IRV 
precinct-summable


On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
 wrote:
> In
> effect, one decouples the calculation (determining the winners) from the
> counting (determining what people actually voted), and one can thus 
> alter
> one without necessarily having to alter the other.

Adb's ballot imaging idea takes this to the extreme.  With pattern
recognition software, you could support virtually any voting method.

The "counting" process would just produce a list of numbers
corresponding to each ballot.

In its most simple form, you would just need a pattern recognition
program that can recognise the numbers 0 to 9 and maybe also the
letter X (for "place an X next to your favourite candidate").

As long as the ballots are designed to make this easy, it shouldn't be
that difficult a task.  There would be a box provided for each number
that the voter fills in.

I wrote some software that is a basic attempt at this.  However, it
only gives 70% ish accuracy.

See:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/

The circles are used to align the image and the black rectange at the
top is used to work out where the top of the ballot is.

I think if there was demand, it should be possible to make this
software much more accurate, since it doesn't have to worry about most
of the complexities of handwriting recognition.  It wouldn't have to
separate out letters as each 'box' would only contain one number and
there are only 10 possibilities.  Also, since each box would be in a
known position on the page, it would be able to figure out where each
letter is located.

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info


Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] IRV proponents figure out how to make IRV precinct-summable

[Raph Frank]

2009/3/18 James Gilmour :
> I'm afraid there is a little more involved that your description would 
> suggest because real voters do things you might never expect.
> But it has all already been done for public elections.  Just one example of 
> which I have some knowledge.  In May 2007 in Scotland
> two different elections were held on the same day.  In the MMP elections 
> (Scottish Parliament) the two votes were recorded by "X"s
> in separate columns on a combined ballot sheet.  In the STV-PR elections 
> (local government - 32 councils) the preferential votes
> were recorded by "1, 2, 3" etc in one column, for as many or as few 
> candidates as each voter wished.

Well, as the software improves, this would be less of a problem.
Also, I think one of the issues in Scotland was poor ballot design
which overloaded the ballot.  A better layout might have been two
separate ballots for each person, so it is obvious that they are
separate.

Abd's proposal is that lots of people would take images of the ballots
and each ballot would have an ID number added (after it is taken out
of the ballot box) for easy reference.

There would then be an official provisional file of all the ballots created.

Anyone would be allowed to challenge the official file.  You would
effectively give the ballot ID + the correct ballot info for each
disputed image.

The returning officer could then check them using the official ballot images.

If there is still a dispute, it can be brough to court for examination
of the original ballots themselves.

There could be a rule that you can only submit 10 challenges and if
20%+ of them are valid, your limit is increased by 5.

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] IRV proponents figure out how to make IRV precinct-summable

[James Gilmour]

Raph Frank > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 12:56 PM
> Adb's ballot imaging idea takes this to the extreme.  With 
> pattern recognition software, you could support virtually any 
> voting method.
> 
> The "counting" process would just produce a list of numbers 
> corresponding to each ballot.
> 
> In its most simple form, you would just need a pattern 
> recognition program that can recognise the numbers 0 to 9 and 
> maybe also the letter X (for "place an X next to your 
> favourite candidate").
> 
> As long as the ballots are designed to make this easy, it 
> shouldn't be that difficult a task.  There would be a box 
> provided for each number that the voter fills in.
> 
> I wrote some software that is a basic attempt at this.  
> However, it only gives 70% ish accuracy.
> 
> See:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/
> 
> The circles are used to align the image and the black 
> rectangle at the top is used to work out where the top of the 
> ballot is.
> 
> I think if there was demand, it should be possible to make 
> this software much more accurate, since it doesn't have to 
> worry about most of the complexities of handwriting 
> recognition.  It wouldn't have to separate out letters as 
> each 'box' would only contain one number and there are only 
> 10 possibilities.  Also, since each box would be in a known 
> position on the page, it would be able to figure out where 
> each letter is located.

I'm afraid there is a little more involved that your description would suggest 
because real voters do things you might never expect.
But it has all already been done for public elections.  Just one example of 
which I have some knowledge.  In May 2007 in Scotland
two different elections were held on the same day.  In the MMP elections 
(Scottish Parliament) the two votes were recorded by "X"s
in separate columns on a combined ballot sheet.  In the STV-PR elections (local 
government - 32 councils) the preferential votes
were recorded by "1, 2, 3" etc in one column, for as many or as few candidates 
as each voter wished.

The paper ballots from both elections were scanned to produce numerical vote 
files of the kind you suggest.  But the compliance
levels for character recognition were set very high, so many images were queued 
for evaluation under scrutiny.  Those that were
disputed or still uncertain were then queued for adjudication by a Returning 
Officer, again under full scrutiny.  Only then were the
completed numerical files passed to the relevant counting program.

James Gilmour

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.18/2008 - Release Date: 03/17/09 
16:25:00



Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] IRV proponents figure out how to make IRV precinct-summable

[Raph Frank]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
 wrote:
> In
> effect, one decouples the calculation (determining the winners) from the
> counting (determining what people actually voted), and one can thus alter
> one without necessarily having to alter the other.

Adb's ballot imaging idea takes this to the extreme.  With pattern
recognition software, you could support virtually any voting method.

The "counting" process would just produce a list of numbers
corresponding to each ballot.

In its most simple form, you would just need a pattern recognition
program that can recognise the numbers 0 to 9 and maybe also the
letter X (for "place an X next to your favourite candidate").

As long as the ballots are designed to make this easy, it shouldn't be
that difficult a task.  There would be a box provided for each number
that the voter fills in.

I wrote some software that is a basic attempt at this.  However, it
only gives 70% ish accuracy.

See:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/

The circles are used to align the image and the black rectange at the
top is used to work out where the top of the ballot is.

I think if there was demand, it should be possible to make this
software much more accurate, since it doesn't have to worry about most
of the complexities of handwriting recognition.  It wouldn't have to
separate out letters as each 'box' would only contain one number and
there are only 10 possibilities.  Also, since each box would be in a
known position on the page, it would be able to figure out where each
letter is located.

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] IRV proponents figure out how to make IRV precinct-summable

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Dave Ketchum wrote:


On Mar 17, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:


Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Dave Ketchum 
 wrote:

There has been a lot of guessing - let's see if I can do better, though
wishing to move to Condorcet:

Precinct-summable IRV is not reachable.  The first counts of top 
ranks have
to be centrally summed to identify certain losers.  Then for each 
ballot of

such a loser the next-ranked not-yet-lost candidate must be reported.
Choices here are:
Have precinct do it, since they have the ballots.
Have had ballot images forwarded so central can do the count.


I agree with you David. And BTW, I also agree with most of what
Kristofer said and in retrospect did not mean that his software idea
was "vaporware" so much as that it would take at least 4 years to be
federally certified at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars
just for the certification so that it is "vaporware" only from that
sense of not being available for most states to use for a long time.


I would say that the only way to make it summable is to do it my way, 
or at least emulate my way. From what you say, it seems that they make 
it "summable" by eliminating all but two candidates and then seeing 
which one wins; that is, they run a "fake first round" for all 
possible combinations of winner candidates. Then a Plurality count 
determines who those two winner candidates are. My claim is then that 
of some winner set {X, Y} of two candidates (possible two round 
result), X wins iff c[X, Y] > c[Y, X]. That means that their method is 
a hackish variant of mine, where the hack is required because they're 
stuck with currently certified voting machines.


Summability is a feature of an election method.  I suspect that what you 
offer fails to pick the winner IRV would, and/or takes too much effort 
to deserve bragging.


Condorcet is summable because ALL of the information from a ballot can 
be copied into the N*N matrix on first reading of the ballot.


In IRV at the time that the A of A>? is read what the "?" may be does 
not matter.  When it is determined that A is a loser, then the "?"s on 
those ballots will matter.


It fails to pick the winner IRV would, but it picks the winner the 
"contingent vote" summability hack picks. The contingent vote is like 
this: first do a plurality count. The two candidates that have the 
greatest count go to the second round, where the one that's ranked above 
the other more often wins. The second round is thus a pairwise 
comparison, but it's not Condorcet, since it doesn't check all pairwise 
comparisons.



 From this distance I do not know whether what was done in Cary was valid:
 If initial counts were 49A, 48B, and 3other, A or B will win and 
all the others can be disposed of together.
 If initial counts were 27A, 26B, 25C, and 22D, D loses.  Suppose 
counts then are 35A, 34B, and 31C, with C losing.  If so, have to finish 
with A vs B.


My impression was that it was a hack - a way of getting a "summable" 
method that can be done using IRV voting machines and that's also at 
least slightly IRV-ish.



The federal-state voting system certification process is a mess and
the entire voting machine industry is a mess because they use
proprietary standards and so voting system component are not
interoperable, and the flawed design of voting machines makes it
extremely difficult to check to see if the systems are producing
accurate vote counts or not.


To the extent of my knowledge, I agree. I think that having the 
machines be engineered around a summable method would help a lot - 
then the machines could be, to quote someone whose name escapes me at 
the moment, "expensive pencils". A Condorcet counting machine simply 
has to do the very simple job of iterating through the ranks; a Range 
counting machine  just has to turn optical scan configurations into 
numbers ("he filled in three circles of ten for candidate X" to "X: 
3/10"). You're left with a small amount of information - the sum of 
the array or matrix - that can be made public.


Important goal here is letting voters express their desires, and having 
this properly influence who gets elected.

 Plurality is weak on the letting.
 Approval is better, but gets proper complaints.
 Condorcet and score do better, but duel as to which is better.
 IRV allows about the same expression as Condorcet, but can deliver 
embarrassing results.


For individual ballots, rated ballots probably confer the greatest 
freedom. One can simulate a ranked ballot (A: 9, B: 8, C: 7) with or 
without ties, and approval style (A: 10, B: 10, C: 0) or Plurality style 
as well.


That is, even though the voters may supply ranked or Approval type 
ballots (depending on the system in question), all of those could be 
stored as rated ballots, which means that in the event of having to 
change the voting method, the format doesn't change.


That's for individual ballots. But if the method is