Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV
Date: 2009-12-14 14:51:54
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

Ian Jackson wrote:
> Markus Schulze writes ("Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV"):
> > in my opinion, the Schulze STV method is
> > the best multi-winner election method:
> Thanks for pointing us to that. Interesting reading.
> I wouldn't support such a thing for a public governmental election,
> because of the need for computer involvement. Public elections should
> be done with simple and readily verifiable processes - ie, pencil and
> paper.

This is nonsense. As far as I can tell, in the method Markus proposes
ballots can be cast with just pencil and paper -- which is the important
part on which pencil and paper should be used. The result counting part
is going to involve computers *anyway*, but since the input data (filled
ballots) is available and verifiable, this is not a problem because
different parties can have their own software.

Alvaro Herrera Vendo parcela en Valdivia:
"Si quieres ser creativo, aprende el arte de perder el tiempo"


Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jimmy Kaplowitz 2009-12-14 14:57:57 Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV
Previous Message Ian Jackson 2009-12-14 13:19:13 Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV