I believe this topic needs more thought.
Ability to do accurate recounts should be considered essential.
Sooner or later counters will be tempted to "adjust" counts to help
achieve desired wins - we should consider it unacceptable to tempt
them by letting them hide evidence of such.
Recounts do not have to recount entire ballots. If suspicious as to
major candidates A and B in Condorcet. look at which of these is
ranked highest but, having found one, not necessary to check whether
that voter ranked the other some place lower.
If counts are reported by such as precinct, as in Condorcet, counts
that look "odd" are the most likely locations of trouble.
Dave Ketchum
On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Stephen Unger wrote:
A fundamental problem with all these fancy schemes is vote
tabulation. All but approval are sufficiently complex to make manual
processing messy, to the point where even checking the reported
results of a small fraction of the precincts becomes a cumbersome,
costly operation. (Score/range voting might be workable). Note that,
even with plurality voting, manual recounts are rare. With any of the
other schemes we would be committed to faith-based elections.
Steve
............
Stephen H. Unger
Professor Emeritus
Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
Columbia University
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
