Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV

From: Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk>
Subject: Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV
Date: 2009-12-14 14:57:57
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:51:54AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 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.

Just to prevent this thread from ballooning really hugely in size with
off-topic comments, I suggest that discussion of voting systems for public
governmental elections be held via private email or some more appropriate list,
except insofar as SPI might be involved in any particular governmental
elections (e.g. Open Voting Foundation). Regarding the use of Schulze STV for
SPI elections, interesting idea indeed and the Secretary may wish to consider

- Jimmy Kaplowitz


Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ian Jackson 2009-12-14 15:16:53 Pencil and paper voting (was Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV)
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-12-14 14:51:54 Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV